Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Situation

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about political developments in Kenya since the statement made by the Governor on 10th May.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I dealt with some of the more important aspects of the present situation at Question Time on 31st May, and there are a number of other relevant Questions on today's Order Paper. I would prefer not to make a general statement at this juncture.

Mr. Williams: In spite of what my right hon. Friend says, is he not aware of the three points which are causing considerable disquiet, firstly, the problem of the maintenance of law and order—this is causing considerable disquiet throughout the Colony—secondly, the question of security for the overseas civil servants, and, thirdly—personally, I think that this is the most important—the need to make the Lancaster House constitution work before there is any further constitutional advance at all?

Mr. Macleod: On the first two of those three points—which was why I gave the Answer I did—there are, in

fact, as my hon. Friend knows, Questions on the Order Paper today. I replied to my hon. Friend on the third matter the last time that we had Questions.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the security situation in Kenya.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Since my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 31st May, there has been the shocking murder of Wambugu Kimathi, a Headman in Nyeri District.
Four Kikuyu have been arrested and charged with the murder. As judicial proceedings are pending I cannot comment further on this case, but C.I.D. investigations into the murder and into reports of secret activities and oathing in the Colony are continuing. Meanwhile, the Governor has given the Provincial Commissioner increased powers under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance to deal with the situation in the area of Nyeri District in which the murder occurred, and these powers have been exercised.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend say something about two things, first, the apparent unrest in the farming areas, and secondly, the growing unemployment in urban areas, which are leading to an increase of crime and have a considerable amount to do with security?

Mr. Macleod: Both those are matters which do cause a good deal of concern. There is another Question on the Order Paper as far as the second is concerned. I think there are some signs that the unemployment situation in Nairobi is less serious than it was.

Administrative Officers

Colonel Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the widespread anxiety of administrative officers now serving in Kenya about their future careers both until Kenya achieves independence and afterwards; and if he will make a full statement in order to restore confidence.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am well aware of the anxiety about their future felt by many members of the East African Public Services.
Constitutional changes are bound to affect officers' careers and it was because of this that in 1954 Her Majesty's Government gave in Colonial No. 306 certain undertakings to officers in territories moving towards self-government.
These undertakings, which mainly concern the protection of existing rights and conditions of service and the provision of compensation, have been fully observed in respect of territories which have already attained self-government, and they will be equally observed in the future.
But particular problems and uncertainties arise in the transitional years preceding self-government and these undertakings, which take effect only on self-government, may not in themselves be sufficient to retain the services of officers whose work will be vital for years to come. I am therefore considering urgently whether any further action by Her Majesty's Government is practicable to meet the anxieties of officers serving overseas; but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of a contented overseas service.

Colonel Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least one very able and greatly respected senior officer in Kenya has recently announced that he is going to retire because of these uncertainties? Is my right hon. Friend aware that others may well follow in this officer's footsteps unless an early statement is made? Can my right hon. Friend say whether he hopes to make a statement at any rate before the House rises before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Macleod: I will try to do that but this is an enormously difficult question, as the House will recognise. If hon. Members study what has been done recently, for example in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and British Somaliland, and all the White Papers laid before the House, they will see that in all these cases the undertakings which Her Majesty's Government gave to the public service were fully carried out.

Farm Land (Value)

Colonel Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that until he is able to announce detailed proposals to underwrite the

value of farming land in Kenya, there will be a virtual standstill in new investment, which is urgently needed, that this is emphasised by the cancellation by more than one major enterprise of plans for expansion, and that apart from the effect on Kenya's economy the present uncertainty is aggravating the unemployment problem; and what progress is being made in the formulation of such proposals.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware of the present concern among some investors, which affects the unemployment position in Kenya. I made it plain in replying to my hon. and gallant Friend on 31st May, that the scheme on which the Kenya Government are now working could not be an underwriting one, in the sense of offering immediate compensation in some form to landowners; but this does not preclude a scheme by which farms will be bought, if both parties are willing, for resale or redevelopment on economic terms. I shall be discussing this scheme further with the Kenya Ministers most concerned during the next few days, when I have received and studied their detailed proposals.

Col. Beamish: is my right hon. Friend aware that what many of us want to see is a scheme which will encourage farmers to stay in Kenya, as opposed to a scheme to encourage them to go by paying them compensation? Since my right hon. Friend is having these talks, can he say again whether he hopes to make a statement before very long?

Mr. Macleod: I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. Mr. Havelock and Colonel Bruce McKenzie are now in this country and I shall be having discussions with them in the next day or two. Their proposals were put in front of me this morning. I will certainly make a statement as early as I can to the House.

Unemployment and Under-Employment (Survey)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to receive from the Kenya Government the report of the Commissioner appointed to make a survey of unemployment and under-employment in the Colony.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In August.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not possible for the Colonial Secretary to expedite the report? Is not this a matter that is really very urgent, and is it not also urgent that the Government should make a statement on how they intend to create full employment and in particular raise the level of wages in Kenya? Will it not, therefore, be possible before the Summer Recess for us to have an opportunity of considering this report?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that I can expedite the report itself. Those concerned are going ahead with that. It is a difficult inquiry into the extent of unemployment and under-employment. August is the earliest possible date but, in response to a Question from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I have asked the Government of Kenya a number of very detailed questions on the exchanges which we had last time at Question Time. I will either put that information in the Library or circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT when I have it, which I hope will be in a short time.

Mr. Kenneth Kaunda

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mr. Kenneth Kaunda was declared a prohibited immigrant in Kenya and prevented from travelling to Tanganyika.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Mr. Kaunda became a prohibited immigrant under the Kenya Immigration Ordinance by arriving in the Colony without the prescribed entry permit. In the circumstances he was required to proceed on the aircraft in which he had arrived. I regret that he has suffered inconvenience but the Governor of Kenya has assured me that if on any future journey he should arrive in transit with his documents in order, there should be no difficulty.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that that excuse will sound very thin? Will he reprimand those in Kenya who have been responsible for a stupid action which has undermined much of the good will which was established between him and the leader of the most important political party in Northern Rhodesia as a result of the talks which he himself had with Mr. Kaunda when he was in England? What

reason can there possibly have been to prevent Mr. Kaunda from travelling to Tanganyika to meet Mr. Nyerere, particularly as in Tanganyika there has been great success in establishing friendship and understanding between the communities?

Mr. Macleod: I greatly value the talks which I had with Mr. Kaunda here and in Northern Rhodesia. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear it, but I expressed my regret that Mr. Kaunda had suffered inconvenience. After all, this incident arose from the fact that Mr. Kaunda arrived in Kenya without the prescribed entry permit. It was from that circumstance that this chain of events came.

Mr. Brockway: I appreciate the regret which the Minister has stated and which I received from the Colonial Office independently. However, is it not a fact that many visitors to Kenya do not fulfil the small technical requirement which Mr. Kaunda had omitted? Is it not the case that Mr. Kaunda did not desire to stay in Kenya but was using the airport merely in transit to Tanganyika? Is not this an example of certain officials at the airport seeking to take advantage of African leaders when they are passing through Kenya in this way?

Mr. Macleod: No, I do not think so. It is difficult to tell at this distance from the events. I think that this is probably a case of an airport official applying the existing rules too rigidly but perfectly correctly. I do not think that it was a question of his trying to take anything out of Mr. Kaunda in that sense.

Mr. Callaghan: While it is welcome to hear the Colonial Secretary say that the airport official might have behaved correctly but perhaps rather tactlessly, will he represent to the officials there that it is undesirable that African leaders should be hustled in this undignified way and that nothing but good can come from a visit by Mr. Kaunda to Mr. Nyerere in Tanganyika and that this sort of behaviour can cause, I will not say irreparable harm, but unnecessary pinpricks and friction?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the House has dealt with this matter in a very reasonable manner. I said that I regretted that Mr. Kaunda had suffered


inconvenience and I know that that regret is shared by the Government of Kenya.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Royal Visit

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the multi-racial children's party at Mufulira, Northern Rhodesia, was cancelled on the occasion of the Royal visit; and on whose authority the African guests at the official garden party at Lusaka on 20th May were segregated from white guests.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It was decided to cancel the children's party in favour of an extended drive by the Queen Mother through Mufulira. In the course of this drive thousands of children of all races were able to see and greet Her Majesty.
As regards the second part of the Question, no official garden party took place at Lusaka on 20th May, and I imagine the hon. Member is referring to the garden party held at Mufulira on that date. Any suggestion that segregation was practised at this or any other function during Her Majesty's visit is unfounded, and I deeply regret that such allegations should have been circulated about a visit which has, I know, given pleasure to all the peoples of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst recognising the pleasure which this visit has occasioned, is not the right hon. Gentleman failing to state the full facts about the cancellation of the children's party? Is he aware that my information is that this children's party was cancelled because European parents declined to allow their children to attend the party where there were African children? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware, so far as the garden party is concerned, that the Press reports clearly indicate that the African guests were segregated from the white guests?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's information on those matters is not accurate. On the first, of course, there was at the time a good deal of anxiety on the Copperbelt—that is perfectly true—particularly centring on the township in the area where the rally would be held. It was thought wiser

that an extended drive should take place. As far as the other matter is concerned, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been carefully into it and I am sure that the allegation which he makes is untrue.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Law Courts, Valetta

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the law courts of Valetta were destroyed by enemy action in 1943 and are still in ruins; that the court has to sit in two different buildings causing great inconvenience; that the departments are scattered over the town; and, in view of this, when they are likely to be reconstructed.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Three hundred and ninety thousand pounds have been set aside in the Malta Government's Development Plan for the rebuilding of the law courts on their original site. The site has been cleared and the preparatory work put in hand. The plans formerly drawn up for reconstruction of the building have proved unsuitable and revised plans are now under consideration. It is intended that when completed the building, in addition to housing the courts, will provide some accommodation for those Government Departments whose work is closely related to the courts.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that some two years ago plans were prepared for this building and that nothing has been done? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that for seventeen years this building has been in ruins and that there is no other place in the world where buildings similarly destroyed have not been replaced? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, now that the hundredth anniversary of the founding of Valetta will take place in two or three years' time, that the Opera House and the law courts will be rebuilt by that time?

Mr. Macleod: I will not link them together. I think there is a considerable difference between the two. The Opera House is the subject of another Question. As for the law courts, special provision has been made in the plan, and although some reconsideration of the original design has been thought necessary, it remains an important part of the Development Plan.

Royal Opera House, Valetta

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the site of the Royal Opera House in Valetta was cleared over two years ago in preparation for rebuilding but that no start has yet been made; and whether, with a view to attracting tourists, he will take steps to start building at an early date.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Where heavy capital expenditure is involved the Government of Malta's policy is to give priority to projects of an essential nature, and those likely to assist in the diversification of the island's economy. Nevertheless, it is intended that the Royal Opera House should be rebuilt if the reserve or contingencies element of £4 million in the Development Plan has not been otherwise committed before 1961–62.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is because of the economic position of Malta that I put this Question down? We promised the people of Malta some time ago that part of their new industries would be tourism, and surely the re-establishment of the Royal Opera House in Malta would encourage tourism in the island?

Mr. Macleod: I think that there are more direct ways of encouraging tourism in Malta than this contribution, on which, I am sure, it would be necessary to incur a running deficit as well, but it stands a chance of being included, as my Answer indicates.

Constitution

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration he has given to the need for an all-party Parliamentary Commission of three or five Members to study the question of a constitution for Malta.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet able to state in detail the steps he proposes to take to restore the right of representation and self-government to the people of Malta.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have considered many possibilities in connection with a future constitution for Malta but I am of the opinion that an all-party Commission would not be appropriate in the present circumstances. My noble friend

the Minister of State will be visiting Malta very shortly, and this will help me in the urgent consideration I am giving to Malta's problems. But I am not yet ready to put forward detailed proposals.

Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is very little more information that he can get from Malta? Mr. Mintoff is not going to see Lord Perth. Dr. Borg Olivier has been here and has told by right hon. Friend everything he can, and so has Miss Strickland. From whom else can my right hon. Friend get information?

Mr. Macleod: That is precisely one of the difficulties, but nobody has succeeded in producing a constitution for Malta that has lasted more than a few years. It would be very sad indeed to have a conference that failed. Therefore, although I know that I have been asking the indulgence of the House for some little time on this, even if I take a little longer I think that it would be right to explore one or two possibilities before trying to bring people round the table.

Mr. Callaghan: How long is it since Malta has been without a constitution? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman told us more than the bromides which he has uttered this afternoon? If the political leaders will not see Lord Perth over there, why not invite them here? It need not be a formal conference. Why not have conversations here on this matter?

Mr. Macleod: When I went to Malta Mr. Mintoff refused to see me and therefore I am not sure that that is a way round. The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that it is too long. I very much want to bring Governor's rule to an end but I want to find a satisfactory answer. When I replied to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) some time ago I said that, first of all, I intended to move away from Governor's rule as soon as I could and that it would be a little time before I was ready with my proposals. Therefore, I have not changed my decision in that matter.

Sir P. Agnew: Can my right hon. Friend say whether when Lord Perth


visits Malta he will also visit the dockyard and see for himself what progress is being made, at what speed the conversion of the dockyard to commercial use is going on, and whether Baileys at Malta are getting on with the job?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that my noble Friend will do that. He has been most closely concerned with the consultations for a very long time.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not a fact that Malta has now been without any democratically elected Parliament for over two years? Would not the first step be to re-establish a Parliament elected by the Maltese people and then to consult representatives in that Parliament about a future constitution for the island?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that I differ very much from the hon. Member. This is just a question of what is the best way of doing that. Of course, I want to see a Parliament elected by the Maltese people, but I am sure that there must be some prior agreement and understanding about what sort of constitution it will operate. The worst service that I could give to Malta would be to call a conference that failed. There has been a stream of these conferences in the past. Even if it takes a little longer and takes a little more patience, we must try to come together on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Detainees, Kenya and Nyasaland

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many people have been detained without trial for more than one year in Kenya and Nyasaland, respectively; and what is the longest period any of the present detainees have been held.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In Kenya, 478 of those detained on 7th June had been held for more than one year, the longest period being since October, 1952, In Nyasaland, twenty of those still in detention had been held for more than one year, the longest period being since March, 1959.

Mr. Hynd: While being gratified that the number in Nyasaland is relatively small, may I ask whether the Secretary of State is feeling that this is a blot on

British justice, the basic fact of which is that people should not be locked up without fair trial? Is it not a disgrace that people should have been locked up since 1952 without trial?

Mr. Macleod: The number of those in Kenya, 478, is, I suppose, something like a half of 1 per cent. of those who were in detention at the height of the emergency.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Shinwell: Why put it in percentages? What has that to do with it?

Mr. Macleod: It has this to do with it. It has been necessary for all those 80,000 people to go through a long and careful process of rehabilitation, and clearly it is the more difficult as one goes lower in the categories of people still there. It is bound to be the last few hundred cases which have to be studied with special care before they are released.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Surely now that the state of emergency is ended in Nyasaland and there is a chance of a new chapter beginning there, the Government ought not to go on detaining people without trial?

Mr. Macleod: There is a total of twenty who will be detained for a time, but in the Governor's view, which I entirely support, it is possible to end the state of emergency and to look forward to what I hope will he better and more peaceful times in Nyasaland only by keeping a certain number of these people in detention for a time.

Mr. Wise: Could my right hon. Friend try to persuade hon. Members opposite to read the Corfield Report reasonably thoroughly and possibly persuade them to do a little less harm than they have done in the past?

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House a little more about the case which has been under continuous detention since 1952? Could he tell us what efforts at rehabilitating that particular detainee have been made and how much progress has been made in the eight years and how much more further detention is expected to be required before he is fully rehabilitated?

Mr. Macleod: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman himself can have had recent experience of the detainees to whom this Question refers. I have very recently been in these camps. I know the devoted work which is being done to try to release as many of these people as possible, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are still a considerable number of people in Kenya whom, in the judgment of the Governor and in my judgment, it is not safe to let out.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what exactly he considers is meant by rehabilitation? When is a man definitely rehabilitated?

Mr. Macleod: A man is rehabilitated when he has put behind him—in these cases we are talking about Kenya which, I assume, the right hon. Gentleman is talking about—once and for all the Mau Mau and all the elements which went with it.

Constitutions, Tanganyika and Kenya

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for how long he intends the new or modified Constitutions introduced in Tanganyika in 1960 and in Kenya in 1961 to run.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As far as Kenya is concerned, I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) on 31st May. As for Tanganyika, I have already indicated that the way forward is to get the Constitution working and then study, in consultation with the local leaders, what the next steps should be.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that in Kenya constitutional progress depends on the evolution of a non-racial society and that till that actually happens Her Majesty's Government in this country intend to hold the reins of power?

Mr. Macleod: I think I would not wish to add to the Answer I gave on 31st May to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) in which I spelt out fairly carefully the answer to the question which my hon. Friend has asked.

Civil Servants (Pay)

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received, since his recently announced increase in inducement pay, from the European Civil Servants Associations of Tanganyika and Uganda; and what reply he has given to them.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has made to the deputations of civil servants from various East African territories, for which he is responsible, who have expressed discontent with their pay and prospects; and what further action he intends to take.

Mr. Iain Macleod: After consultation with the Associations, the Governments of Tanganyika and Uganda decided not to proceed with the offer of the immediate award to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 24th May. Since then delegations from the Associations have been received by myself and by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State and have stressed the urgent need for an increase in salaries. I am glad to say all the East African Governments and the East Africa High Commission have agreed that the Salaries Commission should be asked, as a matter of first priority, to examine and make recommendations regarding the need for interim awards where these appear to be justified.

Mr. Clark: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and to ask him to see that the Salaries Commission works with the utmost expedition, and to remind him that when the Lidbury Commission sat in 1954 it was two years from the date of its appointment to the date when the salaries were actually paid to the officials.

Mr. Macleod: Yes. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be a real sense of urgency in this. The whole report should be completed before the end of this year, and the interim report, of course, considerably earlier.

Mr. Callaghan: Will there be any appeal from the Salaries Commission's decision if the staff are still dissatisfied?

Mr. Macleod: In a sense, no doubt: appeal to me. These matters will come to me for decision.

Mr. Callaghan: Arbitration?

Oral Answers to Questions — THE WEST INDIES

Secretary of State's Tour

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent tour of the Federation of the West Indies.

Mr. Iain Macleod: With permission, I will make a statement at the end of Question Time.

Cotton Production

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the conference on cotton production has now taken place in Port of Spain; if he will make a statement on the discussions; and who were the representatives of British Honduras at the conference.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No conference on cotton production has taken place in Port of Spain. Perhaps the hon. Member has in mind discussions in Antigua last month between representatives of the Federal Government of the West Indies, unit territories and the West Indian Sea Island Cotton Association. I understand that at that meeting proposals were discussed for setting up a statutory board for marketing Sea Island cotton. The next step will be for the Federal Authorities to draft the necessary legislation. British Honduras, which does not produce cotton and is not of course part of the Federation, was not represented at the Conference.

Mr. Royle: Cannot something be done about the representation of British Honduras, which has been a neglected Colony and which is in need of further development? Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether it cannot be brought into these discussions which are of interest not only to the West Indian growers but to manufacturers in Lancashire?
Since this is a Question relating to the West Indies, may one express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman's wife has quickly recovered from the accident which she sustained there?

Mr. Macleod: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said.
It does not seem to be of great value for British Honduras to be represented

at a cotton conference if it does not produce cotton. If the pattern of production in British Honduras changed, whether it should be represented at future conferences would be a matter for consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Typhoon

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the extent of the damage caused by the typhoon in Hong Kong; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to assist the people made homeless by the typhoon.

Mr. Iain Macleod: On present information 49 people were killed, 12 are missing and 127 were injured and treated in hospital. Two hundred and thirty-four craft were sunk, 40 damaged and 20 are missing.
A relief fund has been opened in the Colony. It is being used for rehabilitation grants to fishermen, building grants and compensation grants to families who have lost their breadwinners.
Her Majesty's Government have decided to contribute £6,250 towards relief work as a token of our sympathy and concern for the people of Hong Kong. An advance is being obtained from the Civil Contingencies Fund pending the submission of the necessary Supplementary Estimate.

Football Pools Betting Bill

Mr. Thornton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Governor and official members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council all abstained from voting on the Second Reading of the Football Pools Betting Bill, 1960, which had been officially presented, with the result that the Bill was defeated by seven votes to nil with eleven abstentions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: After the First Reading of the Bill, public opinion reacted strongly against it. The Governor considered that in these circumstances it would be undesirable to force the Second Reading by the use of official votes.

Mr. Thornton: To what extent were the unofficial members of the Legislative Council consulted before the announcement last December of the Government's intention to enable a football pool to be established? Secondly, why was not the Bill withdrawn instead of the Colonial Government being subjected in this way to such a humiliating defeat? Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the cost already incurred by the Post Office and by the Asian Football Pool in preparation of these pools?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that the Governor introduced the Bill after consultation with the Executive Council, which includes unofficials. I am not sure of the answer to the second question, but I imagine that it was wished to test opinion in the House, apart from public reaction in the Colony. The third question was a matter of detail and / will find out the answer and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESTATE DUTY

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Attorney-General when he expects to present to the House a Bill to consolidate the law relating to Estate Duty.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) on 3rd March.

Mr. Freeth: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is one of those cases in which a consolidation Bill would be of immense benefit to the executors and relatives of many people, especially at a time when they are feeling least able to try to cope with the difficulties of the law spread over many Finance Acts? Will he, therefore, do something to try to expedite the presentation of such a consolidation Bill?

The Attorney-General: I am by no means sure that there is very much point in consolidating Estate Duty enactments, because in many cases the incidence of duty depends on the state of the law at the time of the death and earlier events, so that consolidation of

this branch of the law might not be very helpful to the executors. There are many good books, some of which are in the Library, on Estate Duty law.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the time is over-ripe for an amendment of the law relating to Estate Duty, particularly with regard to small estates which should be relieved of some of the burdens which they now bear?

The Attorney-General: No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will distinguish between consolidation and amendment. Amendment of the law with regard to Estate Duty is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Historic Buildings (Repair and Maintenance)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Works whether he has considered the criticisms made in the Annual Reports of the Historic Building Councils for England and Wales about the inadequacy of the funds made available by his Department for the repair and maintenance of buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest; and what steps he intends to take to meet those criticisms.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): I am considering the Council's remarks in consultation with the Treasury.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his parsimony on this matter to date has resulted in the signing of the death warrant of fine buildings, to quote the English Report? Is it not intolerable that retrenchment on the preservation of beauty should become one of the hallmarks of the affluent society? Will he not, therefore, at least restore the 33½ per cent. which was cut from expenditure of this kind?

Lord John Hope: As well as the Councils' remarks, I will consider the hon. Lady's.

Mr. Deedes: As it is seven years since the House had a chance of discussing this subject, when the original Act was


passed, will my right hon. Friend represent to the Leader of the House that the possibility of our having even part of a day to discuss this subject might be acceptable to both sides of the House?

Lord John Hope: I will certainly see that my right hon. Friend knows about my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Dugdale: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is most unfortunate that at a time when this country has never had it so goad there should be so many buildings falling into decay for lack of adequate funds—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Especially workers' houses.

Mr. Dugdale: —including some workers' houses which are of historic interest and beauty? Will he not consider giving greater help so that these buildings might be preserved?

Lord John Hope: The right hon. Gentleman's observations lend themselves to some very tempting forms of riposte on which I will leave him to reflect in silence.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is there any chance that if the House, in Committee of Supply, were to refuse an increase in my right hon. Friend's Vote for this purpose, he would report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that the Chancellor could reduce taxation to enable owners to keep the houses in repair?

Mr. Woodburn: While the Historic Buildings Councils appreciate the considerate and tactful way in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached this problem, two very large problems have arisen in Scotland and England which have taken most of the funds for one year, which makes the job a little more difficult in dealing with the smaller items. This is something quite outside what was originally contemplated in the amount of money granted. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if something can be done for these exceptional cases to relieve the councils of the very large obligation involved?

Lord John Hope: I will certainly see that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are borne in mind when we are considering this matter.

Banqueting Hall, Whitehall

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Works what progress has been made with the proposal to remove the museum from the Banqueting Hall, Whitehall.

Lord John Hope: I cannot yet add to my reply of 23rd February, 1960, to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker).

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply did not tell us anything? Could he not get on with the job of emptying this very important historic building of the very unimaginative and inappropriate contents which now occupy it?

Lord John Hope: I hope that the hon. Member and other hon. Members will realise that this does need, and is getting, from both sides, a tactful approach. There is good will on both sides. It is not quite as easy as he says. I should regret it if anything were said that implied that in some way those who own the museum have been at fault in having it there. It is not their fault.

Holyrood Park, Edinburgh (Speed Limit)

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Works what representations he has received against the proposed change of speed limit in Holyrood Park, Edinburgh.

Lord John Hope: I have received letters from three hon. Members for Edinburgh constituencies enclosing constituent's letters on this subject. One or two other letters have been received by my Department.

Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the demand for this change came from? Did it come from Edinburgh? Is he aware that there is a great volume of opinion in Edinburgh very much opposed to this increase in the speed limit? In view of this, will he seriously consider withdrawing the Order?

Lord John Hope: No, Sir. I do not think, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, that he is right in saying that there is a great volume of opinion against this. I thought it was a sensible step to take, both there and in other parks. We have to move with the times and a 20 m.p.h.


limit is quite unrealistic. It would be a pity if people looked upon a change from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. as though it were a change to 60 m.p.h.

Mr. Willis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Lord John Hope: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be welcome to me.

Hartlebury Castle

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Works whether he was consulted about the future of Hartlebury Castle; and whether he has taken any action in the matter.

Lord John Hope: No, Sir. As is required by the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, 1943, the Church Commissioners consulted the Ancient Monuments Board for England on proposals for work at Hartlebury Castle. The Board offered certain advice which the Commissioners did not accept. There is no provision for me to be consulted or to intervene.

Bricks (Supply)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Works if he will cause an investigation to be made into the brick situation, in view of the long-standing shortages of bricks that there have been for some considerable time, which are hampering the building trade.

Lord John Hope: No, Sir. I am keeping in close touch with suppliers and users and the manufacturing industry is making great efforts to meet the high demand. Deliveries so far this year have been a post-war record.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that 8,000 million bricks are required this year, and that brick production will be nowhere near that figure? Is he also aware that many builders say that even by placing orders now they cannot get bricks before November or December unless they pay black market prices? Will not he have an investigation to find out the facts before it is too late?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friends have been raising this matter for many months

now, and the right hon. Gentleman has given us another complacent reply today. Is it not his Ministerial duty to see that the supply of bricks is adequate? Is it not wrong of him to hand over responsibility for discharging that duty to the brick-making industry, which is reaping record profits out of the shortage?

Lord John Hope: I do not know whether or not it is reaping record profits, but it is producing a record number of bricks. That is a matter for pleasure, I am sure, to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, just as it is to me and my hon. Friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing authorities in Scotland are not now building houses; what proportion this represents of the total number of such authorities; and how many small burghs are not building.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Of the 231 local housing authorities, 116—including 107 small burghs—had no houses under construction at the end of May.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is a shocking state of affairs, in view of the fact that many hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland are still without adequate housing facilities? Does he still stand by the Answer which his right hon. Friend gave to me some months ago, which stated that the reason why many of these authorities, if not most, are not building is that their housing needs have been satisfied? Will he give particular attention to the problem of the small burgh of Culross about which I have been making representations for several months now, with no results?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, I am very agreeable to considering Culross. I think the hon. Member knows that it is under consideration at the moment.

Salmon (Drift Netting)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that steps are now being taken to start


drift netting for salmon round the Scottish coast, and that this will ruin the Scottish salmon industry; and if he will state his plans to protect that industry.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): My right hon. Friend is aware of reports that some Scottish fishermen are intending to obtain gear for this purpose but it is too early to say what developments will take place or to assess their consequences.
Drift netting for salmon is, of course, prohibited within estuarial limits and there are certain restrictions on fishing for salmon in the sea.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the present the time to protect this very important, nourishing, succulent and appetising industry, which is one of Scotland's most important industries? Will the hon. Gentleman investigate the threat to it and take steps to protect it now?

Mr. Leburn: I am not satisfied that in present circumstances it is necessary or justified to take the steps suggested by the hon. and learned Member, but I will certainly watch the position very carefully.

Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955

Mr. Hendry: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the bad condition of many unclassified and unadopted roads in country areas, he will take steps to encourage local authorities to make fuller use of the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): All county councils coming within the scope of the Act were informed in a circular letter dated 1st July, 1959, that my right hon. Friend was anxious that they should take full advantage of its scope and were invited to submit a list, in order of priority, of the schemes they proposed to carry out. There has been a good response from county councils and there seems no likelihood that the full amount provided under the Act will not be taken up.

Glasgow (Development Plan)

Mr. Rank: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that in the first quinquennial review of its de

velopment plan, a copy of which has been sent to him, Glasgow Corporation insists that for the proper redevelopment of the city a new town is essential; and when he proposes to sanction this further development.

Mr. Galbraith: The quinquennial review has not yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend. On the question of a further new town I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) on 8th December last.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when his right hon. Friend gets this report—which should have been in his hands by now—he will discover that Glasgow needs 60,000 houses now in which to rehouse outside its boundaries those of its population who cannot get a home for space reasons within the city? As the overspill agreement provides for 30,000 houses only, can he suggest a better solution than that proposed by the Corporation for providing the other 30,000?

Mr. Galbraith: It would be better to wait until we have seen this report.

Mr. Rankin: We have waited long enough.

Farm Fires (Animals)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the losses of valuable herds incurred in farm fires; and whether he will take steps to ensure that all farm buildings are equipped by already existing automatic mechanical devices for releasing trapped animals.

Mr. Leburn: I have nothing to add at present to the reply given on this matter yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply said that the Minister had not heard of it? Is he aware that I am informed that apparatus exists that can open doors in case of fire and allow trapped animals to escape? A great deal of valuable stock is lost in this way. Is he prepared to look into it if information is sent to him about it?

Mr. Leburn: Certainly.

New Roads (Expenditure)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the principles which limit the expenditure on new roads in Scotland to less than the work that could be done by existing available labour and equipment.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) in reply to a Question on 26th April, the size of the road programme is determined in relation to all other demands on our resources.

Mr. Woodburn: As the making of roads is a matter of labour and materials, and as labour and materials are available in Scotland, is there any reason, in common sense, why we should not use them? Is it not the case that there is a false idea that book-keeping should decide whether or not people can work? We need these roads through Scotland. The labour is there, and I am told that valuable plant is lying idle. Is there any reason why the Government should not use their power to bring these three factors together and to institute a very much increased programme of new roads in Scotland?

Mr. Macpherson: We are using the labour and equipment. The real test is our expenditure on improvements, which was £2½ million four years ago and is running at £10 million this year.

Mr. Ross: It is not running; it is crawling.

Cumbernauld Development Corporation (Houses)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reasons prevented the Planning Committee of Dumbarton County Council from granting permission for the erection of 283 houses by Cumbernauld Development Corporation.

Mr. Galbraith: The reasons given to the development corporation by the county council were, I understand, that the particular house types and layouts proposed are, in the council's view, open to objection on amenity and density grounds.

Mr. Rankin: Does not the hon. Member agree that, in view of the tremendous

need for houses in Scotland, it is essential that these delays should be cut out? Has he no suggestion to offer as to a method which might be used to speed up the building of houses in the Cumbernauld Estate?

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State recently met the two authorities with the object of trying to produce some procedure which would speed things up.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Calico Printers' Association and United Turkey Red

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Calico Printers' Association's bid for United Turkey Red is causing disquiet in the textile trade, and monopoly is feared in textile printing; what steps he proposes to take to overcome the danger of monopoly; and if he will make a statement.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I am aware that apprehension has been publicly expressed in relation to the employees of United Turkey Red.
If it appears that there is a danger of harm being caused by the extension of monopoly conditions a reference to the Monopolies Commission would be the normal course.

Mr. Osborne: I should like to ask three supplementary questions. First, has the Calico Printers' Association given any undertaking that the United Turkey Red works in Scotland will not be closed down and workers thrown out of their jobs? Secondly, how can the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeed in his policy of reducing prices if price-raising monopolies are allowed to increase the scope of their activities? Thirdly—and I hope I shall not be thought to speak in a hostile manner—is the Board of Trade putting its foot on the accelerator or on the brake of the Monopolies Commission?

Mr. Maudling: A bid has been made, but the closing date for acceptances is not until 29th June. I understand from a public statement that the Calico Printers' Association has taken no decision yet about the future of the


Dumbarton works. In fact, the Monopolies Commission investigated the calico printing process in 1954 and made a number of recommendations, which were substantially carried into effect. Should a further reference to the Monopolies Commission appear advisable we should not hesitate to make one.

Mr. Steele: As there is deep apprehension in my constituency about the future of these work s, and as the Government, under D.A.T.A.C., gave a loan of £400,000 to this company last year for the purpose of providing employment in these works, can the President of the Board of Trade say whether the board of directors consulted the Board of Trade before they issued a statement to their shareholders advising them to accept the Calico Printers' Association's offer?

Mr. Maudling: They were under no obligation to do that. The position of the D.A.T.A.C. loan is fully safeguarded. The Government would be very sorry to see anything that aggravated the unemployment situation in this part of Scotland.

Mr. Jay: As this is yet another case—following the recent one concerning bicycles—of an uncontrolled take-over bid possibly leading to a monopoly, is the President of the Board of Trade in this case going to take some steps before the monopoly is set up, and not simply wait to refer it to the Monopolies Commission afterwards?

Mr. Maudling: That goes rather wide of the original Question. I can act only within the powers that Parliament has given me.

Commonwealth Trade

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of Great Britain's relations with the Six and the Seven in Europe, if he will make a detailed statement of the policy of the British Government designed to maintain and develop British trade with the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Mr. Maudling: It remains our policy to expand Commonwealth trade by all practicable means. This policy has not been affected by our relations with the Six or with our partners in the Seven.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that doubts and uncertainties are being expressed by industrialists in Europe and various Commonwealth countries as to the limitations of the operation of the Six and Seven in relation to the British Commonwealth? In the interests of trade between the Six, the Seven and the Commonwealth, therefore, will he make a comprehensive statement so that industrialists will know where they are?

Mr. Maudling: The fact that the Commonwealth trading system was not mentioned in the Stockholm Agreement or in the negotiations leading up to it conclusively proves what the Government have always said, namely, that there is no conflict between our trading relations with the Commonwealth and closer trading relations with Europe.

Mr. C. Royle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any consideration has been given to the possibility of bringing the countries of Western Europe and the British Commonwealth into one great economic union and common market?

Mr. Maudling: That is rather wide of the Question and Answer, but if the hon. Member studies the matter he will appreciate that the difficulties involved are very great.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (STAFF)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet reached a decision on the best method of securing rights of trade union negotiation and joint consultation for the staff of the House.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am advised that this is a Question for you, Mr. Speaker, not for Her Majesty's Government.

Mrs. Castle: Has the Prime Minister forgotten that just before the Whitsuntide Recess he promised personally to look into the matter and discuss it through the usual channels? Is he aware that the usual channels have now reached a dead end? Is he further aware that six years ago an all-party Committee of this House—the Stokes Committee—investigated this matter and recommended that the best way to deal with


it was to allow a representative Commission of this House to discuss the best ways of achieving the principle of collective bargaining, in the special circumstances which obtain here? Will not the Prime Minister now give his mind to this matter?

The Prime Minister: It is quite true that on 24th May I said that if right hon. and hon. Members wished it we would be quite willing to discuss the matter through the usual channels. Nevertheless, I am advised that any decision to allow the staff of the House of Commons trade union representation in negotiations and consultations would be for the Commissioners as a whole, so far as salaries or fees were concerned, and for you, Mr. Speaker, alone, so far as conditions of work were concerned. I understand that shortly before the Whitsun Recess you received representations on the subject from hon. Members and that you are in the process of finding out the views of those interested. That being so, I would have thought that the best thing to do would be to allow this process to continue until you report to the House that you wish some other process to be substituted.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the Prime Minister aware that it was just because the Commissioners failed to carry out this principle of collective bargaining that the Stokes Report—which, I repeat, was a unanimous and an all-party one—suggested that the Commissioners procedure should be changed. Hon. Members on this side of the House are pressing for the implementation of the Stokes Report, so that a body more representative of all sides of this House can be in control in this matter.

The Prime Minister: The facts are as I have stated them. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that it is right that we should ask you to continue the work which you have kindly undertaken to do, and which it is your duty to do, and then report to the House as a whole if you wish to suggest that some changes are desirable.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that the usual channels have reached a dead end? That is what I have been thinking for quite a long time.

The Prime Minister: The trouble is that the usual channels work fairly well in this House except when, as happens on some occasions, they tend to spread out into a delta.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that, far from having reached a dead end in this case, the usual channels in fact reached an understanding that Her Majesty's Government would make approaches to you, Mr. Speaker, with a view to your considering whether some new arrangement could be made with regard to trade union recognition? Is the Prime Minister further aware that it is a ridiculous state of affairs that in every Royal Palace except this one trade unions are recognised? Would it not be a good idea to offer the services of the Minister of Labour to advise you, Mr. Speaker, on how similar arrangements could be made for the Palace of Westminster?

The Prime Minister: I think that certain views have been expressed to Mr. Speaker and Mr. Speaker is now charged with the matter, as indeed is his function under the law.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think I had better say—I was keeping quiet so as not to involve the Chair in anything that may have a semblance of inter-party argument—that at the moment my information is not quite complete. When it is complete I will consider whether or no I think it right to recommend to the House that a change should be made. Should I decide against the introduction of some new system of representation, I have already undertaken that I will receive further representations about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (NATIONAL GOVERNOR FOR WALES)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now state the name of new chairman of the Welsh British Broadcasting Corporation and the reasons that led to his or her appointment.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has no doubt now seen the announcement that the Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment of


Mrs. Rachel Marianne Jones to be the British Broadcasting Corporation's National Governor for Wales from 1st July, 1960. The reason for the choice of Mrs. Jones was her eminent suitability for the post.

Mr. Thomas: In asking the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider this flabbergasting appointment, may I also ask whether he is aware that there is a mounting tide of opinion in Wales that this merely shows his complete contempt for Welsh affairs and, secondly, that it is an intimation to the people of Wales that the way to preferment in Government appointments is to be friendly with Lord Brecon and the Minister for Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs?

The Prime Minister: Regarding the first part of the supplementary question, the only statements I have seen throwing doubt on the suitability of this appointment—this lady is generally recognised to have done good work and has great experience—relate to her limited knowledge of the Welsh language. Unfortunately, she shares that with two-thirds of the Welsh people and perhaps, although I would hesitate to say so, with some hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I—[HON. MEMBERS: "In Welsh."]—ask the Prime Minister whether he appreciates how glad we are that he recognises that it is unfortunate that this good lady does not understand the Welsh language? That is good news from the Conservative Party to Wales. May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the qualifications laid down in the Charter for the person appointed to this post? May I read them to him?
The … person to be designated as National Governor for Wales who shall have been selected for appointment as Governor in virtue of his knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of Our People in Wales and his close touch with Welsh opinion…
May I ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that, judged from that standpoint, there is no one but himself and the Minister for Welsh Affairs who thinks this a good appointment?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman or hon. Members opposite are not saying

that because a man or woman has only a limited knowledge of the Welsh language they have no knowledge of the culture, characteristics or affairs of the Welsh people. If so, I can only say again that they are ruling out more than two-thirds of their fellow countrymen.

Mr. Griffiths: May I tell the Prime Minister that we do not want to rule out anyone? May I ask him to refer to the fact that it is desirable, and indeed it is laid down, that they should be in touch with Welsh opinion? Is he aware that it is the universal view in Wales—I do not think there are many hon. Members opposite who would disagree—that from that standpoint this is a very bad appointment?

The Prime Minister: I think it is a very good appointment. I am comforted by the thought that when the Office of Minister of State for Wales was set up, and the present Minister was appointed, there was a great deal of criticism, but I think that now there is almost universal acceptance that my right hon. Friend has done a very fine job for Wales.

Mr. G. Roberts: Quite apart from the question of language—and, after all, the B.B.C. in Wales is expected to provide a bilingual service—may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is very deep criticism and even resentment in Wales about this selection? In view of the fact that in any case the Charter expires in two years, would not it have been a wise move to have asked the present chairman—who has given the utmost satisfaction—to continue until that time and to give advice as to the revision of the Charter?

The Prime Minister: There are here two questions—whether we should ask the present chairman, who is 72 years old, to continue, or make another choice. Of course, I recognise that in all these cases choices are difficult to make. My right hon. Friend does his best to find suitable persons. May I in this case appeal for at least that amount of gallantry to be shown to this lady as would give her a chance to show whether she can do this job well or badly? I think she can do it well.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: In view of the fact that the minutes of the Welsh Broadcasting Corporation are kept in


Welsh; in view of the fact that a high proportion of the programmes are also in Welsh and in view of the fact that Mrs. Jones does not understand or speak Welsh, can the right hon. Gentleman really say that this appointment is suitable?

The Prime Minister: Of course, if it were true that the minutes were kept in Welsh, that would be a disadvantage. However, I have ascertained that the minutes are kept in English. They are translated into Welsh and circulated in both forms, no doubt for the benefit of those other members who have some difficulty in understanding the Welsh language.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature both of the appointment and the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first possible moment.

THE WEST INDIES (SECRETARY OF STATE'S TOUR)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now reply to Question No. 16.
I have just returned from a most interesting and rewarding tour to the West Indies in the course of which I visited Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados and had discussions with the Governor-General and the Governors, Federal Ministers and Ministers of all the unit territories as well as many other representative groups and individuals. I also had, at the end of my visit, the unique opportunity and privilege of taking part in a meeting at the Federal capital, under the Governor-General's chairmanship, of the Prime Minister of the Federation the three Premiers of Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados and the Chief Ministers of the other islands, at which a most valuable exchange of views took place.
On the question of the future of the Federation, I made it clear that the shape of the Federation and pace at which it should advance to independence were essentially matters for the West Indians to settle but that Her Majesty's Government remained convinced that Federation offered the best solution for the problems of this area and that, as soon as West Indians had made up their

minds on these questions and provided that the essential attributes of sovereignty were satisfied Her Majesty's Government would be ready and anxious to help them achieve independence at the earliest possible date and would indeed be proud to sponsor for full membership of the Commonwealth a country which, I am convinced, has much to teach the world, not least the way in which the people of many varying racial origins can live together in friendship and co-operation.
While in Trinidad I resumed constitutional discussions which had been started last autumn and had many discussions with representatives of the Trinidad Government, the Opposition party and other representative bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce and the T.U.C. In the result, all matters left outstanding from the London talks were settled and a full statement of recommendations for a revision of the constitution based on the principle of full internal self-government for Trinidad and Tobago, and commanding, I believe, a very wide measure of support and agreement in the territory, will be presented to Parliament and to the House of Representatives as a White Paper. Meanwhile, a summary of the main proposals has been published.
A further question which was discussed with Federal and other Ministers affected was the proposal that there should be talks with the United States Government for a revision of 1941 Leased Bases Agreement. Agreement was reached as to proposals which might be made for the consideration of the United States Government in this connection and as to the form which West Indian representation might take.
Full agreement was reached in my discussions with the Federal Government on the introduction of a Cabinet system of government for the Federation.
A variety of other questions was discussed during my visit and I am happy to report that discussions on all these matters revealed a wide identity of views between myself and West Indian Ministers.
I could not conclude without voicing my very deep gratitude for the many kindnesses which I received from all sections of the population in this most hospitable quarter of the Commonwealth.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that we very warmly welcome the degree of agreement that he has achieved? Will he allow us on this side of the House to express our sympathy in connection with the accident suffered by his wife at the beginning of the trip and to convey to her our good wishes for a speedy recovery?
Is the Minister aware that we share his hopes about the future of the Federation, but that the rather polite note of his statement conceals the fact that the future of federation in the West Indies is drifting into a state of considerable crisis? May we know what form future consultations will take between Her Majesty's Government, the Federal Government and other West Indian Governments in reaching agreement on this question?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware from his trip, as I was from my recent trip, that lack of clarity about the Government's intentions beyond independence is one of the difficulties on this issue? Finally, will he say when the meeting on the Chaguramas base is likely to take place?

Mr. Macleod: I am grateful for the hon. Member's introductory remarks.
As to the future of federation, recent events in Jamaica, strangely enough, have considerably polarised the parties there in a way which should clarify the issues. It would be difficult to prophesy what may happen when a referendum takes place—it may be several months ahead—but I would have no doubt of the result if it were to take place at present.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has said in general about his visit to the West Indies. The timetable I envisage is that the Governments should come together again for what, I hope, will be conclusive inter-governmental talks not later than the late autumn. After that, possibly with the Jamaican referendum intervening, we might proceed to a constitutional conference, the last great stage before independence.
The discussions on Chaguramas were largely procedural and we are now putting the proposition to the United States Government as to how and when those talks might take place. We have suggested that they should be as soon as possible.

Sir R. Robinson: I am sure that all my hon. Friends wish to associate themselves with the kindly remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) about the wife of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We feel she has shown very great courage in a difficult situation.
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could tell us whether, in the course of the conversations, further discussions took place about the possible future of British Guiana in the Federation?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. The Question of British Guiana came only incidentally into the conversation and we had no discussion on that.

Mr. Blyton: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during the discussions, the question of inadequacy of the allowance of revenue to the Federal Parliament was raised? Will it be increased over and above what is mentioned in the agreement, because there is great concern in the Federal Parliament about the amount that it is to be allowed to raise by taxes?
Could the right hon. Gentleman also say whether it is not possible to get Jamaica further into the Federation by applying a Customs union over a period of years, instead of at one fell swoop, as seems to be contemplated, and which would lead to a serious position in Jamaica?

Mr. Macleod: There is general recognition that the initial arrangements for the central financing of the Federation were quite inadequate. I think that agreement will be reached on that matter at the inter-governmental conference.
The second matter is, again, one on which differing points of view are held by Jamaica, on the one side, and Trinidad, on the other, but I think that it may be that those points of view can be reconciled. If so, there would be a successful outcome to the inter-governmental conference.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: If the Jamaican movement should go decisively against federation, which we all hope it will not, does my right hon. Friend think that there is any prospect at all for any alternative of a second-best, smaller, grouping centred around Trinidad in case the main idea did not work as we hope it will work?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I do not intend to contemplate failure in that respect.

Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify one phrase in his statement which sounded like a qualifying clause, although it might not have been? That was the phrase about "full attributes of sovereignty".

Mr. Macleod: That goes back to discussions I had with Mr. Manley and the deputation from Jamaica which came here earlier this year, when Jamaica was particularly concerned. As the hon. Member knows, Jamaica has advocated a very loose kind of federation, almost a confederation, and the members of the deputation were concerned to find out from Her Majesty's Government what we considered would be the minimum attributes of sovereignty. I answered that question and, if the hon. Member wishes, I can send a copy of the reply I gave, which follows what I have said today.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Minister did not answer the point I made about economic assistance after independence. He will be aware that this particularly affects the smaller territories in the Federation. Would he attempt to clarify this question now?

Mr. Macleod: Only in outline. I tried at my Press conference to explain that, although the form of aid one is able to give inevitably changed because a Colony was no longer a Colony and was not eligible for help under the Commonwealth Development Corporation, yet it would still be possible, under the Commonwealth assistance loans and by other methods, to give help. There probably could be a carry-over of help given under the 1956 Act. These details of financial help on independence can be settled only at the independence conference itself.

Mr. Slater: Could the Minister say how far his thoughts have been directed to some form of association of British

Guiana with the Federation? Even when the elections have taken place, the leaders of the respective parties say they would advocate a separate form of election to carry out any form of association with the Federation. What has taken place between his Departmentt and the principal figures in Guiana in regard to this form of operation?

Mr. Macleod: In reply to one of my hon. Friends, I said that I had had no discussions on the question of British Guiana and the Federation. The position of British Guiana and British Honduras remains that if those peoples expressed a wish to join the Federation and the Federation were willing that it should be so, there would certainly be no objection by Her Majesty's Government.

BILLS PRESENTED

PROTECTION OF DEER

Bill to prohibit the hunting with hounds of deer; to provide for the control of deer by approved methods; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Arthur Skeffington; supported by Mr. Philip Noel-Baker, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. John Dugdale, Mr. Compton Carr, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Carol Johnson, Mr. Oswald, and Mr. Redhead; read the First time; to be a read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Bill to extend the powers of investment of the trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund, presented by Mr. James Griffiths; supported by Mr. Bowden, Sir Robert Cary, Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre, Mr. Bowles, and Mr. Wade; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [20th June]

Resolution reported,

VEHICLES (EXCISE): DUTY PAYABLE ON
CHANGE OF CONDITION OR USE OF VEHICLE

That it is expedient to amend section thirteen of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 31st May].

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

New Clause.—(VEHICLES (EXCISE): CHARGE FOR NEW LICENCE UNDER SECTION 13 OF ACT OF 1949.)

(1) The following provisions shall have effect where under subsection (1) of section thirteen of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949 (which imposes a higher rate of duty in certain circumstances where the condition of a vehicle or the use made of it is altered while a licence under that Act is in force in respect of the vehicle), an existing licence is exchanged for a new licence, and the date on which the higher rate of duty becomes chargeable falls after the end of September, nineteen hundred and sixty.
(2) The payment to be made on the exchange shall, instead of being of the amount specified in that subsection, be equal to the appropriate proportion of the difference between—
(a) the amount payable under that Act on the original licence, and
(b) the amount payable under that Act on a licence taken out for the period for which the original licence was issued but at the higher rate of duty, that amount being calculated, if that rate has been changed since the issue of the original licence, as if that rate had been in force at all material times at the level at which it is in force when it becomes chargeable.
(3) For the purposes of this section the appropriate proportion is the proportion which the number of months in the period beginning

when the higher rate of duty becomes chargeable and ending with the end of the period for which the original licence was issued bears to the number of months in the whole of the last-mentioned period, any incomplete month being treated as a whole month.—[Mr. Hay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.50 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is to fill a gap which we have only recently discovered in the arrangements which we are making to introduce vehicle excise licences for running periods instead of calendar periods as from 1st October this year. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that the new Clause has appeared at this comparatively late stage, but I think that the Committee will agree, when I have finished, that it is a comparatively minor alteration which we are making in the law which should give rise to no great difficulty.
Perhaps I can best explain the position to the Committee by stating what the present position is about the licensing periods for which exercise licences are issued. At the moment it is possible to take out a vehicle excise licence for one of four different types of period. First, there is the ordinary annual licence, which most people take out. This is a licence which expires on 31st December in the year in which it is taken out. Secondly, there is what we call the part-annual licence—a licence which is taken out some time during the currency of the year, but which expires on 31st December. Thirdly, there is the quarterly licence, which expires on the usual quarter day of the quarter to which it relates. Finally, it is possible to take out a part-quarterly licence for a few weeks, but this, again, will expire on the quarter day next following the date on which it is taken out.
By Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1958, the Minister of Transport was given power by Order to change the periods for which vehicle excise licences may be issued. He has made such an Order quite recently. It is the Road Vehicles (Period Licensing) Order, 1960, Statutory Instrument 1960, No. 1023. It was made on 15th June and comes into operation on 1st October, 1960.
The big change which is being made by this Order is to reduce the four categories for vehicle licensing to two. After 1st October it will be possible to take out vehicle excise licences for only one of two periods. The first will be a 12-month licence, and this will be for a running period of twelve months. One can take it out on the 1st of any month and it will run to the last day of the month which precedes it in the following year.
The second will be a four-monthly licence, and this, again, will be for a running period of four months. The part-annual licence and the part-quarterly licence will disappear.
May I turn to the position in respect of the duty itself? At present, when we issue a part-annual licence we make a surcharge of 5 per cent., and when we issue a quarterly or part-quarterly licence we make a surcharge of 10 per cent. The purpose of those surcharges is to help to meet the additional administrative expense in the vehicle licensing offices throughout the country. After 1st October, when this change takes place, there will be a 10 per cent. surcharge on the four-month licences only. This surcharge will be calculated to the nearest shilling.
As briefly as I can put it, that is the background to the situation which we face. It has raised a difficulty for us which the Clause is intended to remedy. If, during the currency of a licence, an alteration is made to the use or to the classification of a vehicle which brings it into a higher taxation category, extra duty is payable from the date when the change is made.
I can give the Committee two simple examples in which this happens. The first is where, by reason of alterations or additions made to a goods vehicle, the unladen weight is increased. As soon as that happens the vehicle is moved into the next taxation category. The second example, which is becoming increasingly common, is that in which a private vehicle is converted and used for the carriage of goods. This, again, transfers it into a different taxation category.
By Section 13 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, this situation is dealt with as follows: a person whose vehicle has undergone this change, and who is, therefore liable for additional duty, is

required to go to the taxation office and to exchange his current licence for a new one at the higher rate of duty. He pays the difference between the old rate for a part-annual licence and the new rate for a part-annual licence for what we call the residual period; and the residual period is that period which still has to elapse under the old licence.
I can give the Committee a simple example which will make this clear. Suppose, under the present procedure, that the alteration in the vehicle takes place in July and the vehicle has been licensed on an annual licence to the end of the year. Let us suppose that the old annual rate of duty payable was £12 and that the change brings the vehicle into a new taxation category in which the annual rate is £18. There is a residual period of five months to run until the end of the year. The owner then pays for that residual five-month period at the difference between the old part-annual licence rate—five-twelfths of £12 plus the 5 per cent. surcharge to which I have referred—and the new part-annual licence rate of £18—in other words, five-twelfths of £18 plus 5 per cent. surcharge. These two amounts are £5 5s. for the old licence and £7 17s. 6d. for the new licence. The difference which he has to pay is £2 12s. 6d. When these circumstances occur, what is paid is keyed to the part-annual licence and not to the annual licence. This is the crux of the Clause.
Under the new system, from 1st October next the part-annual licences will be abolished altogether, and the existing provisions of the 1949 Act will not longer provide a basis on which we can calculate the extra duty to be paid. We therefore have to prescribe some other calculation for the extra duty, without changing the principle. That is what the new Clause does.
The effect of the new Clause is this: the amount payable for any residual period of months will be a sum which is equal to what we call the "appropriate proportion" of the difference between the amount paid on the original licence and the amount payable on a licence which is taken out for the same period as the original licence but at the higher rate of duty attracted by reason of the change in the use or condition of the vehicle. The "appropriate portion" is that proportion which the number of months in


the residual period bears to the number of months in the period for which the original licence was taken out. Incomplete months will be treated as complete months.
I admit that it all sounds very complicated and that I spent a long time trying to master it. I think that I have done so. May I reiterate the example which I just gave in which the rate was increased from £12 to £18? The difference in the duty for the vehicle to which the alteration is made after the seven-month period has passed will henceforth be a simple five-twelfths of £6—that is to say, five-twelfths of the difference between the old rate of £12 and the new rate of £18. We shall ignore the surcharges altogether. The effect is that most owners will pay a little less.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order. I am loath to interrupt this interesting arithmetical argument, but it is within the Committee's recollection that on the last occasion that we met to consider the Finance Bill, Sir Gordon, you were most rudely and discourteously shouted at by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on the ground that I was spending perhaps a minute raising with you an important point about the procedure on that evening's business.
For the last ten minutes the hon. Member for Kidderminster has been monopolising your attention, which has meant, among other things, that you have missed this fascinating and eloquent argument by the Parliamentary Secretary. I want in no way to interfere with the right of any hon. Member to approach the Chair on matters affecting the conduct of business in the current day's sitting, but since it was the hon. Member for Kidderminster who queried your right to allow me to do that on the last occasion, and since the hon. Member for Kidderminster now finds it necessary to do it himself at considerably greater length, I should welcome your Ruling whether—as I have always considered it to be—it is in order for an hon. Member thus to approach the Chair.

4.0 p.m.

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) never suggested that I could not discuss matters with Members of the Committee. It is perfectly in order and

necessary for me to do so with any Member of the Committee. It is not always possible to listen at the same time to the hon. Member who is addressing the Committee.

Mr. Wilson: That was the point that I was trying to make, and I am very glad that you have now given that Ruling, Sir Gordon.
On that occasion I was discussing with you when it might be appropriate to move to report Progress, in view of certain occurrences that evening, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who was making, no doubt, a powerful speech on one of his Amendments, tried to attract your attention four times by shouting "Sir Gordon" at the top of his not inconsiderable voice, and insisted on your listening to him and not being diverted from doing so by any hon. or right hon. Member who wanted to speak to you.
I am glad that you have given that Ruling. I am sure that it will be as useful to the hon. Member for Kidderminster in the future as it has been to other hon. Members in the past.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Further to that point of order. As the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has referred to me twenty-seven times in a lesser number of seconds, is it not the fact that his consultations with you on the evening of the day before the House rose for the Whitsun Recess were conducted in such a loud voice as to make it impossible for the hon. Member you had called to make a speech to make himself heard?

The Chairman: The conversation was conducted in a perfectly normal fashion. If the hon. Gentleman could not hear himself speak, it must have been due to deafness on his part.

Mr. Nabarro: No, Sir Gordon. My hearing is very sound. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has said that my consultation with you during that last few minutes was conducted sotto voce, as compared with the bellowing tones of the consultation that you had with the right hon. Gentleman opposite some two weeks ago.

Mr. Wilson: While I do not wish to take up undue time, it is necessary to make this point clear. This is a different point altogether. The memory of the


hon. Member for Kidderminster is at fault. The point he made on that occasion when he called your name several times was that you were not listening to him. It is all on the record. He said that he was addressing the Chair and that he had a right to be heard by the Chair.
I only raise this matter so that it could be clarified and the rights of hon. Members to consult you could be once again repeated. I am grateful to you for doing that, Sir Gordon. The red herring drawn across the track by the hon. Member for Kidderminster is quite beside the point.
I do not wish now further to interrupt either the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the important conversations which the hon. Member for Kidderminster is having with you, Sir Gordon.

Mr. Nabarro: Would it now be in order for me to continue, sotto voce, my consultations with you, Sir Gordon?

The Chairman: I cannot stop the hon. Member coming to talk to me. I would not desire to do so.

Mr. Nabarro: Jolly good.

Mr. Hay: After those interesting historical reminiscences from both sides, which I am sure have not disturbed the train of thought of hon. Members who have been following in great detail what I had to say, I will complete the second example which I was giving to the Committee by saying that the effect in that case is quite simply to charge five-twelfths in the case I mentioned of the difference between the old rate and the new.
I may add that where the exchange of licence which takes place is of a four-month licence—that is the second new category we are introducing—this new method will also apply with necessary changes of period for the purposes of calculation, but the 10 per cent. surcharge in these cases will continue to be payable as it already is on quarterly licences.
Finally, it remains for me to say that the financial effect of these changes will be that the ordinary person who wishes to exchange a licence will pay a little less than he did before he exchanged it. The Exchequer will lose a little, possibly up to £10,000 in a full year. I therefore think that for all these reasons this change is well worth making.

Mr. E. C. Redhead: Despite its seeming complications, I think that the Committee can be assured that we need not spend an undue amount of time in considering this proposal. I have had the advantage of a little preliminary examination of the obscurities of the original charging Section of the 1949 Act, and we are indebted to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his customary clear explanation of matters which are somewhat difficult to make clear by way of verbal utterance.
As I understand the position, his right hon. Friend, by the Order to which he has referred under Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1958, is, in effect, introducing a simplification of the arrangements for vehicle licensing, and I think that the simplification which he has proposed to the Committee is one that would be welcomed administratively. Solely from the point of view of vehicle owners, such a simplification would be of general advantage. Given the basis now proposed, it is quite clear that the charging basis for what the hon. Gentleman has described as exchange licences provided for under Section 13 (1) of the Vehicles (Excise Duty) Act would no longer be workable, and, in effect, a system has to be provided.
The Clause now proposed provides a perfectly equitable and administratively simple piece of machinery. I am gratified to have the assurance that in the vast majority of cases those who have occasion to take out exchange licences will pay rather less than they have hitherto done.
Without going into the details of the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman, his arithmetic seems to me to be quite accurate, so far as I can check it. He will be very pleased about that. It represents a general piece of administrative tidying-up which is entirely on an equitable basis. For that reason, notwithstanding the difficulties and complications which might still be in the minds of some hon. Members, we on this side of the Committee are prepared to commend the new Clause and advise the Committee to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(RELIEF FROM SCHEDULE A FOR OWNER-OCCUPIERS.)

(1) Where the total income of an individual includes, or would but for this section, include any sum chargeable to tax under Schedule A in respect of a house of which the individual is both owner and occupier, that sum shall be disregarded for all the purposes of the Income Tax Acts other than surtax or the furnishing of information if or in so far as the sum does not exceed fifteen pounds:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any individual in respect of more than one house in any year of assessment.

(2) For the purposes of this section "house" includes any residence or dwelling and a house owned by a married woman living with her husband and occupied by them shall be deemed to be owned and occupied by the husband.

(3) The enactments relating to income tax, and in particular Part III of the Act of 1952, shall have effect as if subsections (1) and (2) of this section were contained in the said Part III between sections ninety-two and ninety-three.

(4) This section shall not be deemed to have required any change in the amounts deducted or repaid under section one hundred and fifty-seven (pay as you earn) of the Act of 1952 before the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Cronin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Cronin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: It would be convenient to discuss with this new Clause the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—Exemption from Schedule A for owner-occupiers—that in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies)—Owner-occupier to be exempt from tax under Schedule A—and that in the name of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—Abolition of Schedule A Income Tax.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. You will have recognised, Sir Gordon, that though the new Clause which the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has just moved and that in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself deal with the same general issue of Schedule A, they are very different in their content, because the new Clause which has been moved prescribes a limit of £15 for exemption from Schedule A whereas the new Clause in the names of my hon. Friends and myself deals with the total abolition of Schedule A on owner-occupied houses.
Having regard to that important difference between them, though you have ruled that they may be discussed together, is it possible for the Question to be put separately on these two new Clauses, for I find myself in the invidious position of having to vote against the new Clause now under discussion, but, of course, having to vote for my own?

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order. I should very much like to support the point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Mr. Nabarro: Jolly good.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that it is for the general convenience of the Committee and in the interests of the time we get to bed tonight that we should take all these new Clauses together. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure the Chancellor does, that what is proposed in the various new Clauses is very different in its ultimate conclusion. I do not object to the hon. Gentleman's account of it. That being so, it might be helpful to the Committee to give all hon. Members a chance of voting for their own proposals. We shall have the chance, presumably, of voting for ours, and it is only fair that on such an important issue the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends should have an equal right to vote for their proposals.

Mr. Donald Wade: May I also support that suggestion? You will have noticed, Sir Gordon, that the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and myself goes considerably further than that in the name of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), which is also being discussed with the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). It would be helpful if there could be a separate vote on these Clauses.

Mr. John Barter: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Sir Gordon, to the fact that there is also on the Notice Paper a new Clause in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and several of my hon. Friends—

Mr. Nabarro: And mine.

Mr. Barter: —and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—Allowance under Schedule A for owner-occupiers—on the same subject, but which, again, approaches this very delicate problem in a slightly different way. While I shall find myself in considerable difficulty in supporting the Opposition in their new Clause, I should be very glad if we could have a separate vote on my new Clause as well.

The Chairman: I shall call the new Clauses for a Division separately, but they can be discussed with the new Clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), which has been moved by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). In view of the feeling of the Committee, I suggest that we have Divisions on all three.

Mr. Cronin: The purpose of the new Clause is quite clear. It is to give complete relief from Schedule A Income Tax up to a maximum of £15. In that respect it is completely different from the new Clauses being discussed with it. The purpose of limiting the concession to £15 is to confine it to owner-occupiers of the ordinary small house and small garden with which we are all familiar, and not to include large houses or extensive properties.
We on this side feel that Schedule A Income Tax is, to a large number of people, the most vexatious and oppressive tax, particularly to owner-occupiers of comparatively small dwellings and gardens. Such owner-occupiers are particularly deserving of sympathy. The man who saves to purchase a house with a garden to shelter his wife and children, and possibly his aged and ailing relatives, is particularly deserving of some support from the Committee as regards his fiscal obligations.
The owner-occupier of a small house and garden has many burdens. He has mortgage payments. Because of the prevailing high rates of interest he has to pay rather more in mortgage payments than is necessary. He has to cope, also, with the very high cost of post-war housing.
The number of people having to pay Schedule A Income Tax is steadily

increasing. It increases with the number of people who have to pay Income Tax. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in the House of Commons last year, since 1951 there has been an increase of 2¾ million taxpayers and during the same period there has been an increase of £494 million in the total amount of Income Tax paid. The right hon. Gentleman's original words are to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, vol. 607, c. 1015. Schedule A Income Tax increases in its incidence pari passu with the increase in Income Tax.
There are various arguments for and against this concession. I shall draw the Committee's attention, first, to the arguments in favour of the concession contained in the new Clause from the point of view of equity. First, Schedule A is not a tax on income. It is a tax on a notional income. It would appear from the elementary principles of justice that Income Tax should be charged on income and not on a purely hypothetical income existing to a large extent in the minds of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
It also seems rather inequitable that a man should be taxed on his beneficial enjoyment of occupation of real property when people who have a beneficial enjoyment of other forms of property are not taxed. To put it in simpler language, it seems unreasonable that a man is taxed because he possesses and occupies a house with a garden, when others having a caravan, a houseboat, a yacht, a painting by an old master, or a washing machine, do not pay tax on that property. It is fair to point out that a washing machine is already subject to Purchase Tax. It seems unfair that houses and gardens should be the subject of Schedule A, which is essentially a tax on houses. There is no reason why houses should be subject to tax rather than other forms of property.
There is another aspect of this subject which indicates that it is rather unfair from the point of view of fiscal legislation. The first £15 of interest on money invested in the Savings Bank has been free of tax since the Finance Bill, 1956.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman's phraseology is a little loose. It is not free of tax. It is free of Income Tax, but not of Surtax.

Mr. Cronin: I am very grateful for the correction. It is free of Income Tax. It seems rather unfair that interest on savings of that nature should be free of Income Tax when savings put in the form of bricks and mortar and small pieces of land are subject to Income Tax.
A further aspect of this is that Schedule A Income Tax falls rather unfairly in its incidence on the different people who pay it. There is, as hon. Members on both sides know, relief in the form of maintenance claims. However, maintenance claims require a certain amount of expertise.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cronin: I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with me. They require a certain amount of expertise in order to be successfully urged on Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes. I cannot do better than quote what the late Lord Jowitt said When Solicitor-General, namely, that Schedule A was
the most complicated branch of an exceedingly complicated subject …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1940; Vol. 361, c. 1037.]
It seems rather unfair to expect the average owner-occupier of a small house and garden to be familiar with the rather complicated technical, legal and fiscal matters involved in preparing a claim for maintenance repayments.
The result is that a person who is wealthy and can afford to employ an accountant is able to put in substantial maintenance claims. A person possessing special knowledge can do so. The ordinary person who cannot afford an accountant does not know how to obtain relief for maintenance payments.
This argument is borne out by the fact, which will no doubt have the Chancellor of the Exchequer's agreement, that maintenance claims are made in only one case in ten where Schedule A Income Tax is paid. There is obviously considerable unfairness in the incidence of this tax. It falls most heavily on those people who cannot afford accountants or do not understand the complexities of the law.
There is also a very strong economic argument in favour of some abatement of Schedule A. It is the elementary one of encouraging savings as much as possible Saving in the form of mortgage

repayments is obviously a form of saving as desirable as, if not more desirable than, any other.
I appreciate that there are some substantial arguments against this concession. One which is frequently used is that a man who pays rent receives no tax reduction for his payments of rent. I do not think that that argument is as valid as it sounds, because the majority of owner-occupiers have to make mortgage repayments, which are very analogous to rent, throughout most of the period during which they are in beneficial enjoyment of their homes. Even those who pay for their homes by an outright sum by paying that sum pay rent for an indefinite period in the form of a lump sum. It is rather like the situation when a person instead of paying maintenance for his wife or family regularly and indefinitely makes one large lump sum payment. I therefore suggest that the actual capital expenditure on a house is almost exactly analogous to rent paid, but it is paid in one lump sum instead of periodically—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): Surely that is not right, is it? At the end of the period, the owner of the house is left with the house.

Mr. Cronin: I agree that that point should be made, but this is rather a complicated matter. Is it not rather similar, in reverse, to buying undated Government stock? A lump sum is paid and, as a result, one is free of further payments but receives a beneficial effect periodically, indefinitely.
I think that the Chancellor must accept that for all economic purposes a lump sum is the equivalent of a payment made regularly, even though it is not paid for more than a definite time. It is probable that the Chancellor will not agree with that—he does not look convinced—but I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by expanding that much more fully.
Perhaps the next argument against this new Clause is that the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income rejected the idea of modifying the scope of Schedule A Income Tax. It did that in 1955, and probably collected the evidence in 1954 and 1953. A lot of


water has passed under the bridges since then. In any case, I do not think that we should regard the Royal Commission as being necessarily the ark and the scrolls and the covenant of fiscal legislation indefinitely, although I would be the last to deprecate the very excellent work of Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues.
It seems to me that the Commission's arguments against modification of Schedule A Income Tax were, perhaps, rather less substantial than most of the weighty matter referred to in its Report. First, in paragraph 824 of its final Report the Royal Commission said:
… one of the fundamental assumptions of the tax code
is
that land is inherently a proper subject for taxation in a general income tax.…
I feel that that assumption—and it is no more—requires considerable qualification. When land is divided into very small parcels it is no longer a particularly appropriate source of taxation.
The Commission gave as its second basis for rejecting a decrease in Schedule A Income Tax that a man who owned a house had a greater taxable capacity. At first sight, it would seem that that argument has some substance—a man who is the owner of a house does not have to pay rent, so he has more ability to pay tax. In actual practice, however, the vast majority of those owning houses are making mortgage payments, and even those who are not making mortgage payments are losing interest on the capital sum with which they had purchased their dwelling houses. The Commission's argument does not take into account the high cost of the maintenance of a house, the high cost of housing and the high cost of the very high interest rates involved. I therefore submit that a man who owns a house is not in a better position to pay Income Tax than is a person who pays rent.
The Royal Commission's views are not supported by An Coimisiún um Chánachas Ioncaim—the Commission on Income Tax of the Government of Ireland—which recently issued a report recommending that Schedule A Income Tax should be dispensed with completely up to the first £30. This very weighty

work is available in the Library for hon. Members to study and, unlike its title, its contents are entirely in English. A very lucid and helpful mass of argument is there available in support of a substantial reduction in the scope of Schedule A Income Tax.
Another argument against the new Clause is that a taxpayer who does not own a house would not benefit. The same argument applies to a person who is prevented from taking part in other forms of savings. Some people, because of health or age, are unable to take out life insurance. Others cannot buy Savings Certificates. Others cannot obtain superannuation benefits, because those are not available in the job. The circumstance that a taxpayer who does not own a home cannot benefit cannot be used as an argument for not encouraging this particular form of saving.
I have no doubt that the Chancellor will refer to the cost of implementing the provisions of the new Clause. He said last year that it would cost £40 million in a whole year, but he should bear in mind—

Mr. H. Wilson: That was to abolish it altogether.

Mr. Cronin: Yes, I am glad that my right hon. Friend points that out. The Chancellor said that to abolish Schedule A Income Tax would cost the Treasury about £40 million—

Mr. Nabarro: With respect, the hon. Member must get this right. My right hon. Friend said last year that total abolition of Schedule A Income Tax on owner-occupied houses might cost £40 million—not the total abolition of all Schedule A. They are different matters.

Mr. Cronin: That interjection was a little superfluous, as it must be clear to both sides that this new Clause deals exclusively with owner-occupied houses. I sometimes feel that the interjections by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) are superfluous. We heard earlier complaint from him about the loudness of hon. Member's voices. Judging by his constant interruption of my speech, he is rather like a man in a crystal palace who throws boulders.
The other aspect of the matter that is rather against the new Clause is that


it gives no relief to the family man who does not pay Income Tax. Again, I do not think that that can be put forward as a serious reason for rejecting the Clause. There is no logic in saying that we must not help one person because we cannot help someone else.
I have summarised—with comparative brevity, in view of the nature of the subject—some of the arguments for the new Clause and, to some extent, those against it, but I feel that it is a Clause that would be of the greatest value. It would relieve so many members of the population of a burdensome and irksome series of payments, it would simplify the fiscal system, and would be a substantial advance in the whole financial and social structure of the country.

Mr. John M. Temple: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, can he say what would be the cost of the new Clause to the Exchequer?

Mr. Cronin: I had sat down but, if I can rise again, I would say that the hon. Member's question is best directed to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has extensive facilities for getting such information.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I am deeply grateful to you, Sir Gordon, for your Ruling that, notwithstanding our debate on this very important aspect of direct taxation being an amalgamation of considerations arising from four new Clauses on the Notice Paper, they might be dealt with, if there were a vote, quite separately, because there are important contradistinctions between the four proposals. The new Clause standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson)—and I pause again to express my appreciation to him for supporting the view that we should have a separate vote, if necessary—and moved by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) restricts the relief proposed to only the very small or relatively small type of house.
I think it would be wholly wrong to indulge in discrimination again in this field, and I give, as an example of where discrimination in fiscal matters is leading us, a reference to the very matter that the hon. Member for Loughborough brought into his speech earlier—the fact that the first £15 of interest on the

deposits in the savings banks is free of Income Tax assessment but not free of Surtax assessment. That has always seemed to me from the moment that it was introduced a ridiculous discrimination which nobody has ever been able to justify, because there are surely a lot of Surtax payers in this country who put money into savings bank accounts for convenience and for other reasons, and to penalise or single them out seems to me to be an intolerable situation.
If we brought that kind of discrimination into the field of Schedule A, it would lead to a large number of additional difficulties. Schedule A is referred to as Income Tax. Income Tax should, in my opinion, be directed to taxation of income. The form of taxation enshrined at present in what we are pleased to call Schedule A is not a tax on income. It is a notional consideration based on all the complex matters which are related in the final Report of the Royal Commission.
Although I do not wish to weary the Committee with any part of the Commission's arguments for or against abolition of Schedule A, it is instructive to observe that a large part of the Royal Commission's Report is devoted to this important topic. I cannot give the exact number of pages, but starting at page 245, there is an entire chapter, Chapter 28, relating to all the considerations for and against a continuance of Schedule A tax. A majority of the Commission evidently favoured a continuation of Schedule A tax, and a minority considered that it should be abolished. What is important is the short and succinct statement on page 249 of the Report, paragraph 826, of the reasons advanced by those who pleaded, as I am pleading in the new Clause entitled "Exemption from Schedule A for owner-occupiers", for total abolition of Schedule A tax on owner-occupied houses.
The words employed in paragraph 826 were:
The witnesses who objected to the charging of tax on the owner-occupiers of dwelling-houses did so on the grounds—
(1) that notional income is not a fit subject for taxation; and
(2) that it is inequitable to tax the beneficial enjoyment of a right of occupation of real property when the income which could, by parity of reasoning, be attributed to the owners of other forms of property (e.g., motor cars) goes untaxed."


Then the Commission proceeds with a lengthy dissertation on the merit or otherwise of those two proposals.
My reasons for pleading for total abolition of Schedule A tax are relatively simply expressed. It is, in my opinion, an illicit tax—illicit because if all the owner-occupiers of dwelling houses in this country knew their statutory rights and privileges the Chancellor would collect practically nothing from Schedule A tax at all.

Mr. Amory: indicated dissent.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry that the Chancellor is immediately expressing his dissent. He disagrees with me. But let me proceed with my argument. There are 6 million dwelling-houses in this country assessed to Schedule A tax. Every one of those taxpayers may make a maintenance relief claim, providing that they spend money on repairs and maintenance. The overwhelming majority of them do spend money on repairs and maintenance. No owner of a house deliberately causes by negligence his hereditament, which is his own personal property, to fall into a state of desuetude or decrepitude through lack of attention.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Some landlords do.

Mr. Nabarro: The overwhelming majority do not. There is, of course, a tiny minority involved in every argument, and a minority may do so, but the overwhelming majority do not. Out of 6 million owners of dwelling-houses, only 600,000 last year made a maintenance relief claim—one in ten. Nine out of ten did not make that claim.

Mr. John Diamond: Why?

Mr. Nabarro: For a variety of reasons—in many instances because of ignorance of their statutory rights and privileges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to carry my hon. Friends with me as well as Opposition Members. Many of them fail to make their claims through ignorance, and many through fear. A lot of simple people in this country are genuinely afraid of a tax collector. They think that he is some "god almighty" who can raise an assessment for them and collect from them larger sums of money than he should be able to do.

Many more do not make these maintenance claims through sheer idleness.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Nabarro: I am glad that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) agrees with me. But I say in defence of those people that it is an awful lot of trouble to convince these tax inspectors that repairs and maintenance are genuinely involved and that there is no element in respect of improvement. That is one of the troubles.
I am sorry the Chancellor indicated dissent when I made a statement on this matter of maintenance a few moments ago. Possibly, with due modesty, I have more personal experience of these matters than he has.

Mr. Amory: My dissent was to my hon. Friend's statement that a tax which brought in nothing would be an illicit tax. I do not agree that it would bring in nothing, even in present circumstances, if everyone applied for and obtained maintenance relief, and in any case I do not think that a tax which brings in a small sum or nothing is necessarily illicit.

Mr. Nabarro: May I explain to my right hon. Friend that I think it is an illicit tax if one does not bring very clearly to the attention of the persons who are liable to pay the tax the reliefs that they may obtain by going through certain procedures? That is a very valid matter and has often been adversely criticised. Nobody can deny that the overwhelming majority of people who do not make these claims do not know that they can make the claims. That is why it is illicit.

Mr. Amory: I cannot agree at all. On every relevant form we call the attention of the taxpayer to the existence of maintenance claims; in fact, he is urged if in doubt to seek advice from his Income Tax inspector. I have always said that I am willing to consider any practical suggestions that are made for making those rights even clearer than they are at present.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend is coming along nicely, and I congratulate him. I shall be dealing with his point in close detail in a moment—it is in my


notes—as to the advice which my right hon. Friend gives to owner-occupiers. But I say it is not enough.
For example, why does he not study the habits of the Midlands Electricity Board which puts inside every account that it sends out to consumers an advertising leaflet for the sale of electrical appliances on hire purchase from one of its showrooms? Why does not the Chancellor put inside every Schedule A Income Tax assessment a nice brightly-coloured leaflet, which I will willingly design for him—I am used to advertising matters—which would say to the Schedule A owner-occupier, "Have you claimed your maintenance relief for the repairs you have executed? If you have not claimed it, why have you not done so? This is how you claim it." I would bring it luridly to his attention.

Mr. Amory: I bet you would.

Mr. Nabarro: I hear my right hon. Friend say, "I bet you would". I quite agree. I would bring the matter luridly to the attention of the taxpayer.

Mr. Barter: Will my hon. Friend accept that it might tax even his considerable ability to explain in simple terms the procedure which from then on has to be followed?

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I am addressing you, Mr. Arbuthnot, facing the Chair, in view of your earlier rebuke, but I am replying to my hon. Friend who made that useful intervention. I shall have to wave over my shoulder at him. It is true that the method of claiming the relief is extremely complex. It covers every item of household expenditure in maintaining a property, from putting a new washer on the kitchen tap to regravelling the garden path or drive or putting—

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend would not get that one in. He would not get an allowance for gravelling his front path.

Mr. Nabarro: I wish that everyone would not contradict me in the Committee. My hon. Friend says that I am wrong. If he will kindly look at a set of papers which I am prepared to send him relating to my personal Income Tax Schedule A assessment for 1959–60 he

will find admitted there the cost of regravelling my garden paths at home. [An HON. MEMBER: "My hon. Friend bullied the inspector."] I have not bullied the inspector. I never bully anyone.

Mr. H. Wilson: No one will ever accuse the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) of bullying anyone. Is there not a mishearing here which is causing misunderstanding? I think that the hon. Gentleman said that he got an allowance for regravelling his garden path. Is not the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) questioning whether he would get anything for gravelling his garden path?

Mr. Nabarro: Gravelling, regravelling, scarifying or rescarifying—they are all terms covering much the same thing. The point I am trying to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, perfectly sensibly, I think, is that one has to maintain the path to one's house and the inspector will allow that expenditure. The great majority of taxpayers, however, do not know that he will allow it. The making of these claims is a very complicated business and it requires a great deal of work. It calls for more work on the part of the tax inspector, in my view, than on the part of the house occupier because so much argument and correspondence is inevitably involved.
I say again to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that only one house owner in ten at present makes a maintenance claim. If all ten in every ten house owners made maintenance claims, the Inland Revenue would be submerged and could not possibly deal with them. That is a further reason why I maintain that this is an illicit tax.

Mr. Ellis Smith: How did the hon. Member vote last time?

Mr. Nabarro: I will gladly deal with that now. On 15th June, 1959, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) voted for the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) on behalf of the Liberal Party. I spoke in that debate. I said that I would not vote with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West because the Chancellor had already given away the £34 million which I wanted to give effect to the abolition of


Schedule A tax on owner-occupied houses, in the form of his relief of 2d. off a pint of beer. Subsequently, of course, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, notwithstanding a written explanation from me on the point, saw fit to publish throughout his Liberal Party propaganda sheets attacks on me for not voting for his new Clause. Today, as the new Clause to which I am speaking is exactly the same as the Liberal new Clause last year, I invite him or the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South to act as a teller for me in support of it.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Wade: I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate to which the hon. Member refers, but I cannot find any reference to the hon. Member saying anything during the course of it. That may be unusual. He did, however, make some comment later in another debate the same evening. I think that he should be accurate in what he says. I cannot find a reference to any statement at all made by him during the course of the debate on the new Clause which I moved.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I explained the circumstances very fully to him at a later stage of that Finance Bill and explained why I did not support him. I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman moved his new Clause because I was making a speech elsewhere—the sort of thing that happens to most of us from time to time. The hon. Gentleman sneers at me now. I have stolen his clothes. I say so quite unashamedly. He can come into the Lobby with me this afternoon and demonstrate his consistency.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has published exact figures showing the cost of making the concession asked for in new Clause No. 19, Exemption from Schedule A for owner-occupiers. He has said that it would cost the Exchequer £45 million in a full year if the Schedule A tax were abolished on all owner-occupied houses, and that £45 million is arrived at after taking into account £10 million given back to the taxpayers, as he expresses it, through maintenance relief claims. That would

not, of course, be a charge this year. It would fall as a charge next year. On grounds of logic, on grounds of equity and on grounds of practical common sense, I believe that owner-occupiers of houses should not be made the subject of this impost.
I come now to my right hon. Friend's intervention about how good the Revenue is in telling Schedule A taxpayers what their maintenance claims may be. On 5th May this year, there was published in The Times a letter contributed by the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. Dealing with this very point only seven weeks ago, he said:
(1) The Schedule A maintenance relief is brought to the taxpayer's notice in Schedule A notices of assessment, Schedule A demand notes, all receipts issued by Collectors of Taxes, the notes sent with the return forms and the notes sent with P.A.Y.E. notices of coding.
(2) The relief under Section 313 is mentioned, admittedly in a footnote, in the principal form for claiming maintenance relief.
(3) Age relief is listed, in the same size of type as the other personal allowances, in all return forms and other forms on which personal allowances can be claimed.
Of course, the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue is absolutely accurate in what he says. I do not deny any of that, but does any hon. Member really suggest that an ordinary factory worker assessed to tax and paying his Income Tax through P.A.Y.E. should know what are the contents of Section 313 of the Income Tax Act, 1952? I doubt whether the majority of hon. Members of the Committee know, let alone the ordinary factory worker paying under P.A.Y.E. If the Chancellor resists the new Clause to which I am speaking today and insists on keeping the Schedule A tax on owner-occupied houses, he ought at least to employ a competent advertising agent to tell him how to put the necessarily lurid slips into the envelopes addressed to all Schedule A taxpayers reminding them of how they can obviate payment of Schedule A tax by making the appropriate maintenance claims.
In the Daily Telegraph of 7th April, 1960, appeared certain comments which I commend to the Committee. The heading was "Dodgers". The paragraph said:
The hunt is up against the naughty tax-dodger. Just as naughty in their way are the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. When is


the hunt going, to be up against them? As Mr. Nabarro pointed out in his excellent article, Schedule A is 'an illicit collection by the Inland Revenue'. It is a tax levied not really upon those who own houses but upon those who, owning houses, are too naïve or too busy or too careless to wriggle out of it".
The Daily Telegraph went on to say:
For every successful tax dodger there must be hundreds of thousands of poor dopes who, from sheer fright, ignorance, confusion or form-blindness, are paying far more tax than they ought. This should be remembered".
The Chancellor is very harsh on tax dodgers. I consider that he should now exhibit a little benevolence towards taxpayers, not all of whom are as intelligent as he is, and, having regard to the complexities of Income Tax, notably Schedule A tax, should remind them how they may avoid and obviate paying any part of this iniquitous levy. I hope that the whole Committee will support my new Clause.

Mr. Diamond: Is not the hon. Member totally inaccurate in constantly referring to the making of a maintenance claim as a method for a person to ensure that he obviates, to use the hon. Member's word, payment of Schedule A tax? The making of a maintenance claim may reduce Schedule A tax, in exceptional circumstances, to nil. The hon. Member has been quite unfair to the Committee. He has not referred to the millions of cases where a maintenance claim is not made because the Inland Revenue already allows the house owner more by way of repairs than he incurs.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member referred to exceptional circumstances. As he well knows, there is nothing exceptional about me. I have never paid a penny in Schedule A tax in my life. [Interruption.] The hon. Member says that he did not think I would. Of course I would not. I organise my affairs and the cost of maintaining and repairing my property in such a way as to make certain that I never pay a penny in Schedule A tax.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Member is a tax dodger.

Mr. Nabarro: That is not being a tax dodger. That is my right. That is what the law says. As I have endeavoured to tell my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the trouble is that many Schedule A tax payers do not know their

rights in this matter. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond).

Mr. Wade: It is important that we should distinguish between the four new Clauses under discussion, although it is for the convenience of the Committee that they should be debated together. I notice—and I think the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) expected me to say this—that the hon. Member has tabled and spoken in favour of a new Clause which is in precisely the same terms as one against which he voted last year.

Mr. Nabarro: One repentant sinner is worth the whole of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Wade: Before I leave the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I should like to raise a point of detail of some importance. The hon. Gentleman should read the new Clauses which he tables. He has referred several times to the total abolition of Schedule A tax for owner-occupiers, but he will perhaps be aware, or he will be aware if he reads his own Clause, that it is limited to one house per person. There is much to be said for that, but I think that we should be accurate. The hon. Member is not advocating the total abolition of Schedule A tax for owner-occupiers. If he wishes to steal other clothes, he should examine the clothes which he has stolen.

Mr. Nabarro: That is a trifling point. A man does not live in half a dozen houses all at once. My new Clause would apply only to one house per person, as is proper. It was a Liberal new Clause last year. I do not mind being associated with the hon. Member. He is not unclean.

Mr. Wade: I am glad to hear that. I always listen with some doubt and hesitation to the observations of the hon. Member, but I do not want to delay the House. He should, however, be accurate.
The Chancellor has a variety of proposals before him, and we shall be interested to find out which of the four new Clauses he chooses. I think it only right that I should explain why my hon. Friends and I favour total abolition this year. Last year we were hoping to ease the path of the Chancellor by suggesting that Schedule A tax


paid by owner-occupiers should be abolished but that there should be a limit of one house. We felt that that was a reasonable step towards total abolition. Unfortunately, we failed to persuade the Chancellor and our proposal was defeated by 231 votes to eight. I will not rub it in too much, but the hon. Member for Kidderminster was one of the 231.
It is only right that I should give some reasons for the abolition of Schedule A tax. I do not want to go over all the ground. This subject has been debated many times in the House. First, there is not as great a difference as is sometimes thought between owner-occupied houses and tenanted houses in the abolition of Schedule A tax. When I use the word "houses", I of course include flats. In the case of rented houses, the landlord will in any case pay tax on the rent. There would, therefore, not be a great difference in the revenue if Schedule A tax on rented houses were abolished. Schedule A primarily affects owner-occupiers. There is not a great difference between limiting abolition to owner-occupied houses and total abolition which I am advocating.

Mr. A. R. Wise: I should like to ask the hon. Member a question arising out of his statement about tenanted houses. What would be the position of a person who has purchased a long lease and only pays ground rent?

Mr. Wade: I should like to consider that point. Abolition probably would apply. I think that there is a case for a clean sweep.
Secondly, there are anomalies which keep coming to light. They are inevitable when it is attempted to tax on a notional income. Last year we had an interesting discussion on the subject of notional income, ranging from caravans to the Chancellor's trousers. It was clear that Schedule A tax was not payable on caravans, houseboats or even the Chancellor's trousers, but it is difficult to draw a line. It is difficult to make any logical case for the kind of notional enjoyment which is taxable or for that which is not taxable. I think that that is inevitable so long as there is this imposition on what is called a notional benefit as opposed to an actual income.
Thirdly, it is very much out of date. Times have greatly changed since property tax, as it is commonly known, was introduced, when a comparatively small percentage of the population owned property. Now many people own houses, which I welcome, and the circumstances are different. For that reason, there is a strong case for the abolition of Schedule A tax. There is no doubt that it is unfair in its incidence. It is true that the Chancellor sends out printed explanations, but there are many owner occupiers, particularly of small houses, who just do not understand it and fail to make their maintenance claims. There is no doubt that many people fail to take advantage of the benefits of the claims which they could make. It is all very unfair.
5.0 p.m.
The Chancellor himself in the debate last year recognised that there was at least a strong argument in favour of abolition. He said:
… it is not my wish or intention to reject the proposal out of hand or for all time. It is widely held to be unfair that tax should be paid on a possession which does not produce a cash income, …
It is only right I should add that he continued
… but this view is by no means universally held.
He then proceeded to refer to the Royal Commission.
I am somewhat disturbed by some of the arguments he used in that debate. For example, he referred to freedom from rent. He said later in the same debate:
An owner-occupied house may not produce cash income, but it produces the equivalent in the form of freedom from rent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 64.]
I should not like to see the principle adopted that a taxpayer should have to pay a tax because he enjoys freedom from rent. What about the tramp who enjoys freedom from rent? I have never heard it suggested that we should impose a tax on the tramp based on the value of the freedom from rent which he enjoys.

Mr. Barter: Would the hon. Gentleman accept also as freedom from rent the permanent resident of a caravan or houseboat?

Mr. Wade: I did in fact last year raise the case of an occupier of a caravan and houseboat, who, I understand, does not pay Schedule A tax.
Later, in the same debate, the Chancellor referred to the fact that Schedule A assessments are based on valuations made in 1935. It is, of course, quite true that many assessments are low. Many are still based on valuations made in 1935, but that is not so of all properties. Some properties have been assessed much much more recently. That is another example of the anomalies and injustices that arise from this kind of tax. This state of affairs will not continue indefinitely.
I do not know exactly in which year the new assessments will come into effect, and I do not know whether the Chancellor will be able to tell us whether, when they come into effect, Schedule A assessments will be automatically raised to the same extent at the same time. If that is so, there is a very nasty shock coming to owner-occupiers when they find that their rates go up and also their Schedule A assessments. Before that happens, it would be advisable to abolish this tax altogether.
I appreciate that such a course involves some loss to the revenue. As I said on a previous occasion in debating a similar new Clause, it would be out of order to suggest other ways whereby the revenue might be raised. I should perhaps refer in passing to the fact that very large profits are being made from some land which is free for development. Very high prices are being paid—in fact, prices have rocketed—but it would obviously be out of order to discuss that now. I merely mention it to show that there are other ways of raising revenue.
As to the Clause proposed from the Labour benches, I think that it would require a considerable amount of expertise and a good deal of understanding to know exactly what would be the rights of a taxpayer. I appreciate the good intentions behind it, but it would not get over the difficulty that Schedule A tax would still be very complicated. For that reason, I do not feel inclined to support the first of the new Clauses suggested this afternoon. I prefer the Clause on which the hon. Member for Kidderminster has spoken. Whatever I may have said about him, I prefer his

Clause; but I think that the best course would be to make a clean sweep of this tax and abolish it altogether.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It seems to be rather popular to have a Clause on this subject on the Notice Paper. At the time my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was tabling his, I was tabling the new Clause which stands in my name and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley).
I share to a great extent the argument put up by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster but, if I may say so, not in so robust or boisterous a sense. I think this is the first time I have spoken on this Finance Bill, save on Clause 29, and I have reserved myself to make a special appeal to the Chancellor on this subject. I do so very briefly, but with a slight difference of argument, and quite unabashed, from this side of the House. I ask him to do this, if not this year then next year, for the sake of our own party. I regard this as being within the very heart of Tory philosophy. Those of my hon. Friends who are associated with me on this matter want this done, for very good party political reasons.
The Labour Party have, I think, been unabashed about doing certain things for party reasons when they were in power. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Tories."] Yes, and the Tories. It is at the very heart of Tory philosophy to be able to give a person an opportunity to buy his own home and not to have to pay a tax on his home. Therefore, I come straight out with this. Some of the nice old ladies of Broadstairs—all very good Conservatives, because it is the most Conservative town in England—own their houses and are very proud to own them.
I observe that the great Labour trade union leaders have changed their views very much over the last few years about this fact of home ownership. If we want to know the way in which the other parties have reacted, we have only to look at the way in which the Liberal Party is making a great platform today of owner-ownership as part of its wider


policy of co-ownership. The Labour Party used to talk a good deal about council houses and council subsidies, but it is not half as strong for it as it was. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The temperature has changed. At any rate, one thing is clear—it is taking great steps to try to encourage home ownership.
Under our present Prime Minister, we had a remarkable record for building houses—houses for sale and houses to let. Notional or otherwise, the first basic argument is that everybody should be entitled to one home—no more—without having to pay tax on the right to have that home. I believe that to be a fundamental argument. I would regret it if we on this side of the Committee found ourselves divided and requiring the support of hon. Members opposite to bring pressure on the Chancellor in this matter. I hope that if the Chancellor cannot meet us this year, he will give us a firm pledge that this is something to which he will give the highest priority in the future.
Secondly, although far less important, it would save him a great deal of administrative time now used by his inspectors in dealing with claims. The new rich, the £12 to £15 a week artisans—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, they are the new rich of today, the motor fitters, the men from Coventry, and a jolly good thing it is. They are earning £15 to £20 a week and many of them earn £30 a week, men who drive fish lorries, for instance. They are beginning to recognise, as the miners did many years ago, that Income Tax is fairly important to them. At last they are beginning to take advice about it and are not being as stupid as was the ordinary man in the factory ten years ago. They are waking up and looking for advice.
It will be unfortunate if the Inland Revenue has to have more and more inspectors to deal with the maintenance payments and returns which this year's debate is likely to encourage. I would be interested to know whether more returns now come in than did last year. Is it not time to see whether some of the administrative expenditure could be saved by cutting out these claims?
I am therefore against the Liberal argument, because I do not want Schedule A tax to be abolished. I want a rather more restricting influence on

some property developers. Those who own a number of houses, property companies least of all, require no reduction in taxation within Schedule A and I do not support the Liberal argument.

Mr. Wade: The hon. Member has referred to property companies. If he means companies which let property, then, of course, such companies will pay tax and may pay even more tax after the abolition of Schedule A, because they will not get the benefit of the statutory allowances in respect of that kind of property. Such companies will not gain by the abolition of Schedule A.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is true in certain cases, but there are others who are engaged in the development of new properties, selling them and passing them on, who are often in the position of having to pay Schedule A. In certain respects they might find that if Schedule A were abolished they would pay the tax as Income Tax or in other ways, but substantial Schedule A claims are made against such property companies and I do not want to see it abolished. There is a clear distinction between the abolition of Schedule A for the owner-occupier in respect of one home only, to which he is entitled, and those who are in the property business. For a business concern, this is a fair and legitimate matter of tax.
Thirdly, the Chancellor has put many of us in great difficulty these days by the changeable policy of interest rates—and I am not necessarily criticising the policy. The men and women who suffer from that are not the big speculators on the Stock Exchange. They are not the big insurance companies who see when the fall is coming. A ludicrous situation has arisen on the Stock Exchange in the last few weeks—

Mr. Nabarro: Very painful.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Very painful for those who do not understand the weird aberrations of the Stock Exchange. At the moment the Bank Rate is 5 per cent. and an increase to 6 per cent. is being considered. The building societies and insurance companies are uncertain at any given moment what interest rate it is proper for them to demand from a borrower. I hope that in the months which lie ahead we shall be able to get some sanity into the Stock Exchange.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate what he is saying to Schedule A taxation.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is intimately related because if a man has to pay Schedule A as a notional tax on income in respect of his house, he has to compute the amount which he is to spend on that house and the most important element with which he has to deal first is his mortgage. The average house, costing £2,500, will carry a mortgage of about £1,700 at 6 per cent. When he has estimated the cost of repaying the mortgage, he knows what he has to spend on maintenance and repairs. He then sees what his Schedule A tax is.
5.15 p.m.
The argument I am addressing to the Committee is that if we are to have a difficult period of high interest rates, as I think we are, then one should consider carefully whether this is the proper time to make a reduction in Schedule A tax. I hope that the argument is clear, whether one agrees with it or not.
I agree with the broad purposes of the Budget and with the steps which the Chancellor has taken to restrict credit. I see the difficulties which face him all the time and the razor's edge on which he is balanced in trying to prevent inflation. I see the difficulties which he has in playing this extraordinary game of poker with the Stock Exchange in which everyone engages in a daily gamble on whether he will raise interest rates and the Bank Rate and whether the Stock Exchange will go up or down. I see that he is trying to keep the index of the Exchange at between 300 and 320 points and that in six months profits will be so big that he will try to keep it between 330 and 340 points That is why we have this jack-in-the-box on the Stock Exhange.
But the person who suffers—and this is the trouble—is the good old Tory house owner, and now the Liberal house owner and the Labour house owner, the small people with a few hundred £s invested on the Stock Exchange, the same people who have a large mortgage on their homes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely hon. Members opposite do not believe that the average Labour supporter today does not have a go on the Stock Exchange.

The Temporary Chairman: That is a little far from Schedule A.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I entirely agree. The obvious example is the unit trust holder.
I conclude by saying that I hope that the Chancellor will seriously consider the new Clause which I and my hon. Friends have drafted. I hope that he will consider it, first, on a basis of doing everything possible to encourage home ownership and as a basis of Tory philosophy. Secondly, this year and next year will be a good time because interest rates are so difficult and the house owner needs to be assisted. Thirdly, I believe that part of the money will be saved by removing some of the difficulties which his inspectors have and will continue to have in dealing with maintenance claims. Fourthly, there is a good deal in the argument about a notional tax.
I have a small and attractive Tudor house. I enjoy owning the house and I am able to enjoy, without notional taxation, the antiques in it, the pictures in it and the silver in it. If one's wife has jewellery, there is no notional tax on that. There is no difference between the treasures, the antiques and the other things which one may be able to buy and one's home. I see no reason why the home should be treated notionally for tax when the others are not.
Above all, I believe this to be one of the best things which can be done for the Tory Party and, as far as I am concerned, that is the best possible reason for supporting my proposal.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has rather spoiled a good case. We are not interested in the jewellery of his wife, or of anyone else's wife, or in the antiques. Most people do not have these things, and I should imagine that the assessable value of the hon. Gentleman's house is probably over £100.

Mr. Rees-Davies: As a matter of fact, it being an old house, the assessable value is £65, very largely because the maintenance is so great.

Mr. Bellenger: At any rate, I think that the Chancellor would be right in saying that in the case of that class of


house, the house with the higher assessable value, it would not, even if the first Clause were accepted, destroy all of the income to which he is at present entitled.
We ought to try to keep the argument as simple as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) moved a Clause which sought to make the first £15 of the assessable value exempt for the purpose of Schedule A tax. I shall support that, but I should be equally inclined to support the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who wants the Schedule A tax removed from all owner-occupied houses.
In introducing the question of the property companies the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet went wide of the mark. I should think that most property companies, in relation to their investments in house properties, are assessed on an entirely different Schedule, namely, Schedule D, and not Schedule A.
All that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are concerned with, I hope, is to exclude the owner-occupier, or the house in which he lives, from the incidence of Schedule A tax. I think it right and fair that the Chancellor should concede the point which has been put from both sides of the Committee. I very much regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough moved a Clause which sought to limit the amount to £15.
In my own constituency, 95 per cent. of the houses, at any rate in one very populous borough, have a rateable value, and, therefore, I presume, an assessable value under Schedule A, of £30. They are within the Rent Act of 1957. Only 5 per cent. of the houses in the constituency are outside the Rent Act as far as the rateable value, and, therefore, I presume, the assessable value, is concerned. Most of them are owner-occupied. I suppose that their assessable value would not be more than £50, although one or two of the houses might come into the £65 class like that of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet.
When we consider that the statutory allowance for repairs to a property assessed at £100 is only £20, and that for a house assessed at over £100 the allowance is only 16 per cent. more, we see that the owner of that house can escape Schedule A tax by doing the repairs that

he must necessarily carry out. With the knowledge that he has, such an owner need not always employ an accountant to put in his maintenance claim. I never go to an accountant. I do my own accounts, and I have found, in contradistinction to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, no difficulty in convincing my inspector of taxes what is maintenance and what is improvement or capital expenditure. I would not say that the regravelling of my garden path would be permissible expenditure for a maintenance claim, but I would say that the repair of the path would be and that it would be easy to convince the inspector of that.
Be that as it may, I fear that the hon. Member for Kidderminster, by his ebullience, has hardened the Chancellor's heart. I am sure that the Chancellor knows that eventually Schedule A tax will have to go for the majority of owner-occupiers, and for a reason which I now propose to advance. In London, for example, quite a large proportion of the property is leasehold. In Kensington, where I live, a large proportion of the property is leasehold. No allowance whatever is granted by the Chancellor or by the Inland Revenue for the depreciation of the leasehold value of that property, whereas in the case of industrial dwellings some allowance is granted for depreciation. That is one additional reason that I would advance to the Chancellor for allowing what, in equity, I consider is a fair relief from Schedule A tax to the owner-occupier.
Of course, Schedule A tax is merely a part of property tax. Indeed, it was originally called a property tax and in most leases, I believe, it is called a landlord's property tax. It is no longer that in the case of the owner-occupier, although I agree that where an owner leases or lets his property at a rent he should pay tax on that rent. But that is a different matter altogether from the case of the man who is trying to provide a home for himself. I would not put it on the same basis as did the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, that it is a sound Tory principle. It is nothing of the kind, as one can see from the new Clauses which have been mentioned today.
As I have already said, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough moved a Clause seeking to limit the amount to


£15, which is the sum that the small saver can escape being taxed on the interest which he receives from his savings. I submit that most of the owner-occupied houses in the country are of a modest net assessable value and it is those people that I want to protect in the same way as we have all agreed to protect the owners of small capital who invest in the Post Office Savings Bank or elsewhere and thus receive a relief of up to £15 per annum by way of untaxed interest.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster mentioned demand notes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent, and I would put it as strongly as I can to the Chancellor, who seems to be receptive to ideas for improving demand notices sent out by the collector of taxes for Schedule A tax. It is a very complicated notice, and difficult for the ordinary man to understand. The Chancellor could improve upon it in so far as the maintenance claim is concerned. Whether he would go the whole distance with his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, I do not know.
Anyone who has had to deal with demand notes for tax under any Schedule whatsoever will know how complicated and how un-understandable they are to the ordinary man. The whole point of the case today is that there is an increasing number of people who are being encouraged by building societies and other organisations, not to mention the Tory Party, to become owner-occupiers. Why should we not encourage them? If they are entitled to relief, as so many of them are owing to the amount of money they expend each year on the maintenance of their properties, why not make it quite plain to them that they can escape Schedule A tax altogether, or, at any rate, receive a substantial relief from it, if they put in a claim?
At present, the maintenance claim has to be based on a five-year average. One has to produce figures for five years to show that over those five years the average entitles one to a claim. It is true that on a change of ownership a person can get the inspector of taxes to agree to the first year's expenditure, but then he has to build up a five-year average before he can maintain his maintenance claim.
The Chancellor could simplify his rules and regulations regarding the de

mand for Schedule A tax, whatever attitude he may take towards the proposals advanced by both sides of the Committee today to ameliorate or to entirely disregard Schedule A tax for the owner-occupier. Not only shall I support my own Clause, but I shall also support that in the name of the hon. Member for Kidderminster if he takes the matter into the Division Lobby tonight.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Amory: I do not want to bring this debate to a conclusion if other hon. Members wish to speak, but I thought that it might be as well, perhaps, if I did make a comment or two at this stage. There are on the Notice Paper five new Clauses, originating from both sides of the Committee, relating to Schedule A. The new Clause under discussion, moved by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), would relieve owner-occupiers from Income Tax, but not Surtax, on the first £15 of annual value of their houses. The hon. Member is not, I think, in his place at the moment, otherwise I should have like him to have made it clear, as I hoped he would, whether that is as far as he wishes to go, or whether he proposes that as a step on the road to complete removal. I have no idea what the policy of the party opposite is on that.

Mr. H. Wilson: We will make it clear in the debate.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the Chancellor repeat his words about my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) now that my hon. Friend is here?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member for Loughborough did not make it clear whether his proposal was as far as he wished to go, in giving relief of Income Tax on the first £15, or whether he was proposing that as a first step on the road to the removal of Schedule A tax altogether.

Mr. Cronin: Rather than that I should make a long intervention it will be more convenient if my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) deals with it in his speech.

Mr. Amory: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has given his right hon. Friend complete power of attorney in this matter.

Mr. Wilson: The new Clause stands on the Notice Paper in my name as well as that of my hon. Friend. I will inform the right hon. Gentleman that on this matter we are not divided as is the Conservative Party.

Mr. Amory: The new Clause put down by the Liberal Party would, as I understand it, abolish Schedule A tax altogether, and I gather from the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that the underlying assumption is that all rents would then be taxed under Schedule D. It is at least doubtful whether that new Clause as drafted would achieve that object, and it would not, I would have thought, be in accordance with the historic principles of the Liberal Party to exempt landlords from tax.
Then the Clauses put down by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, in slightly varying terms, would exempt owner-occupied houses from all tax, the relief being limited to one house for each owner-occupier.
The principal object, as I understand it, of all these proposals is to encourage home ownership, an object which we on this side of the Committee most strongly believe in and to which we have already made a number of practical contributions, notably by relief from Stamp Duty in recent Finance Acts and by the House Purchase and Housing Act of last year.
The decision whether to encourage home ownership by this particular form of tax relief is not an easy one. Some people talk as if the removal of liability to Schedule A tax would remove a discrimination against house ownership and, therefore, would be only common justice, but I think that the facts are against as simple a view as that. It is really not as simple a matter as that. The Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income unanimously decided that the imposition of Schedule A on house ownership was not unfair as between a house owner and someone who rents his home, and it argued that its removal would be inequitable as between them. It considered, therefore, that the tax should remain.
The simplest way of explaining that view, which, I think, is, strictly speaking, the right one, is to imagine a person with £5,000 invested who sells his investment and with it buys a house and lives

In that house. He has lost the income on his investment on which he would be liable to pay tax and instead he has acquired the house on which he is liable to pay Schedule A tax. Someone else has £5,000 invested and decides to keep the investment and to use the income to rent a house, and if he does that, then he pays tax on the income on his investment. With Schedule A charged on the owner these two are in substantially the same position. Therefore, if Schedule A is taken away from the owner-occupier, then, to that extent, it is discrimination in favour of the owner-occupier. [HON. MEMBERS: "But the social grounds."] I am coming to that point. Even though—and this is the point—it does amount to discrimination in favour of the home owner, there may well be a social argument because of precisely that.
I recognise that, but before reaching a final view on the matter I think that it is right for us to remember that there are very many people Who would dearly like to own their own houses, and may well have the means to do so, but, for employment or other reasons, find it impossible to do other than live in rented accommodation. We have got to consider the arguments both ways.

Mr. John Hall: Would my right hon. Friend address his mind to this matter? It is true to say, I think, that a home is no use unless there is furniture in it. Just to have a home without furniture is useless. One can sell one's investment on which one pays tax on the dividends and buy furniture with it, and there is no notional value for tax on the furniture without which one's home is useless.

Mr. Amory: That is just the kind of point Which makes this a complicated issue. The Royal Commission dealt with it and came to the conclusion that the fact that it was not practicably feasible to extend assessments to other forms of property which are also essential did not invalidate the argument that that should be done in cases where assessment could practicably be made—on such things as houses. The Royal Commission did deal with the point.
As I said last year, if the Schedule A tax on owner-occupiers were abolished or varied, then I think that there would be a pretty strong case for a tax


allowance to be claimed on rent paid by tenants. If the owner-occupier were to live tax-free there would be strong grounds for saying that somewhat similar treatment should be given to those who have to pay rent. I think that if that were done it would be a still more expensive course from the point of view of the Revenue; that would amount to something like £60 million a year.

Mr. Hector Hughes: It does not seem to me that what the right hon. Gentleman said that the Royal Commission said is exactly what it did say. The Royal Commission said, in paragraph 826:
The witnesses who objected to the charging of tax on the owner-occupiers of dwelling-houses did so on the grounds—(1) that notional income is not a fit subject for taxation; and (2) that it is inequitable to tax the beneficial enjoyment of a right of occupation of real property when the income which could, by parity of reasoning, he attributed to the owners of other farms of property (e.g., motor cars) goes untaxed.
Those are the ipsissima verba.

Mr. Amory: The Royal Commission said that and a good deal more as well.
I know that a good many of my hon. Friends are disturbed not so much by the tax in its present shape as by what would happen if it were charged on the current rental values of owner-occupied houses, and the immediate answer there is that there can be no revision of present Schedule A assessments without legislation, and, once again, it is too early to decide what is to be the future basis of the tax if it is retained. At present, the basis of assessment, as several hon. Members have said, is the 1935 values. Of course, against that, maintenance claims are allowed at the current level of costs. Although there are variations, in general the assessment of the newer house has also approximated as far as can be to 1935 values, certainly since the Inland Revenue took over responsibility.

Mr. William Ross: That is only in England.

Mr. Amory: I am not familiar in detail with the position in Scotland.

Mr. E. G. Willis: What is the use of producing an argument that does not apply to Scotland?

Mr. Amory: I realise that that is a very serious limitation.
Some people talk as if Schedule A tax was a recent imposition, but Schedule A, like the other Schedules which we use today for Income Tax purposes, dates from Addington's reorganisation of the Income Tax in 1803. The notional benefit which an owner-occupier obtains by occupying his house rent-free has from the first been treated under the Income Tax Acts as taxable, as being equivalent to a monetary income.
The owner-occupier is, therefore, liable to bear tax on the annual value of his house, that is, on the figure which is intended to represent the return which he might have received by way of rent if he had chosen to let it instead of occupying it himself, subject to deduction of the statutory repairs allowance. There was no criticism of that principle, which has been all the time in the law, until after the last war. The Royal Commission on Income Tax, in 1920, restricted itself to some minor recommendations and obviously regarded the principle of the tax as unassailable.

Mr. Barter: In saying that there has been no attack on this taxation since it was reorganised in 1803, is not my right hon. Friend overlooking the fact that in 1803 there were only 2 million houses in the country and very few owner-occupiers, whereas today there are 16 million houses and 6 million owner-occupiers?

Mr. Amory: I agree that the circumstances are entirely different, and we are fully justified in taking a fresh decision today, if we wish to do so, in the light of changed circumstances. The point to which I was referring is that many people talk of this as if it were in some way a recent intrusion by the Revenue authorities in a field not previously covered. It is far from being the case.

Mr. John McKay: Can the Chancellor say what would be the average benefit to these owners of houses, taking, for example, a three-bedroom house with its amenities?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Like mine.

Mr. Amory: Does the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) mean benefit by the abolition of the tax?

Mr. McKay: Yes.

Mr. Amory: I have not the figure in my head, but the hon. Member, from his knowledge, can work out a few cases.

Mr. Barter: According to various figures which my right hon. Friend gave last year, the benefit would be £7 10s. per head per annum.

Mr. Amory: I accept what my hon. Friend has said, but the Royal Commission took the view very definitely that the principle of taxing this particular notional income was a right one and a fair one.
But, having said that, I want to add that I do not consider that in a field like this the recommendations of the Royal Commission need necessarily be conclusive. There are many other arguments. While the arguments of the Royal Commission are pretty conclusive on the propriety of taxing notional income of this kind, and on the relative equity as between a person who owns his own home as against one who rents his, I find the arguments in favour of special discrimination as an incentive to house-ownership an appealing one. But whatever the cogency of the arguments either way I am quite sure that it is not possible to give relief, partial or complete, in the circumstances of this year.
I made it clear in my Budget statement that in the present conditions of brimful demand it would be irresponsible to add to purchasing power by an net decrease in taxation, and that such a conclusion—which has not been really seriously disputed—puts out of court this year acceptance of any of these new Clauses. Complete exemption for owner-occupiers would cost as much as £45 million in a full year at current rates of tax, and even the more modest proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Loughborough would cost £22 million in a full year. Relief on this scale this year is absolutely impossible.
5.45 p.m.
I would sum up by saying that I think that there are strong arguments both for and against relief from Schedule A for owner-occupiers. I have owned to a personal inclination to regard the arguments for some relief at a practicable time as meriting very serious consideration. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said about that, but it must

be absolutely clear that it is not possible to consider relief in the circumstances of this year. We ought all to think over very carefully and weigh up all the arguments for and against, so that we shall avoid the risk of oversimplifying what is a much more complicated and difficult issue than appears at first sight, and so be in a position to form a considered view at an appropriate time.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Chancellor's speech is obviously a very profound disappointment to hon. Members opposite. They may or may not be encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that he may be prepared to think about this in a future year because we read in the Press that he will not be here in a future year, and so far we have not been told who will replace him. It may be the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Mr. Nabarro: I have already realised that possibility.

Mr. Wilson: I was aware that the hon. Member had already realised that possibility, but few others have.

Mr. Austen Albu: My right hon. Friend has not seen Peterborough's "London Day By Day" in today's Daily Telegraph. According to Peterborough, there is a leaflet going round the country which says, "Nabarro for Premier".

Mr. Nabarro: One thing is perfectly certain about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's successor. It will not be the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).

Mr. Wilson: It is true that I was basing my argument on the Press assumption that the Chancellor, to our personal regret, would be moving to other spheres in the near future. As to the suggestion of having the hon. Member for Kidderminster for premier, I am one of those who hold the view that it would be an improvement.
Obviously, we have no dissent with the Chancellor's historical account going back quite correctly, to Addington. We do not dissent either from some of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman used. He is perfectly right in saying that this is a much more difficult problem than would appear from the way in


which it has been presented in some recent oversimplifications. Where I take issue with the Chancellor is with the bit at the beginning of his speech when he went into an imaginative stratosphere and claimed to be a member of a party which had done a great deal for the owner-occupier and for a property-owning democracy and the rest.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter), who intervened, said that the relief, on average, for the owner-occupier of a three-bedroomed house would be about £7 10s. a year, but the hon. Member will admit that the recent decision of the building societies to raise interest rates—a direct result of the Chancellor's financial policy, which I do not think even the Chancellor would deny—would place a much heavier burden on the same householder than the whole of the relief that he would obtain if Amendments for the total abolition of Schedule A tax had been accepted by the Chancellor. Let us, therefore, have no more cant about this.

Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that offset against any consideration of that kind is the practical fact that the standard rate of Income Tax was reduced last year by 9d. in the £, which brought a definite measure of relief to those on Schedule A?

Mr. Wilson: If we go into that kind of degree, there are a lot of arguments that could be used, including the one that many people pay Income Tax because of the inflation which has occurred under the Conservative Government since 1951 and which has taken them up to a much higher rate of taxation. That, however, raises wide issues. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that his financial policies have imposed a heavy burden on those who are buying their houses by means of mortgage, just as other Government policies have imposed heavy burdens on those living in council houses and those who live in privately-owned rented houses.
Let us recognise that for the average family buying its house on a mortgage basis, the whole of the saving that it would get from the Clause is less than the recently announced increase in building society interest rate as a result of the Chancellor's policies. Perhaps we have not seen the end of his policies in

this direction yet, because we are all well aware of the worsening economic situation. We keep reading in the Press suggestions of various things that the Chancellor may feel compelled to do before long.
As for the Chancellor's suggestions about the wider field of the property-owning democracy and investment, it so happens that we are debating this matter on a day when War Loan is at a lower price than it has ever been in all its 28 years. That is not much encouragement to the gilt-edge investor or to anyone else. By all means let the Chancellor stick to the Schedule A arguments, but do not let him lard them about with all this stuff about a property-owning democracy and the rest.
As for the general arguments, the debate has covered some well-traversed ground, as one would expect, but it has brought out the simple arguments very clearly again. There is the argument, on the one hand, of the difficulty about taxing notional income and that a man is not taxed on the notional enjoyment he gets from his car or his refrigerator, not to mention the successful constituency intervention by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) when he referred to furniture, another industry which is suffering as a result of the Chancellor's recent economic measures.

Mr. Nabarro: Jolly good advertising.

Mr. Wilson: That is what I thought, but the hon. Member does his advertising with rather more finesse than certain other hon. Members on the bench behind him.
On the other hand, there is the equally important theoretical argument—I was glad the Chancellor put it forward; it is only fair that it should be taken into account—of the comparison of the two men, one of whom saves throughout his lifetime and accumulates capital. He finds it very much diminished, however, as a result of the Chancellor's policies. He cannot sell his investments—who would want to sell investments which have lost so much? Out of the interest which he gets on them he pays rent. Before he pays rent on the flat or the house in which he lives, he is paying tax on the interest he receives. The Chancellor fairly drew attention to such a man, setting beside him for the purpose


of argument another man who had saved that amount of money, disposed of his investments—or perhaps he had always kept it in liquid form—and put it into a house. It is then suggested that he would live rent free in the house and be free of Schedule A on it. That is an important argument. Whatever our desires in the matter of helping owner occupiers, none of us can dismiss this argument that the Chancellor has put forward.
It is true, as hon. Members have said, that this whole question was considered by the Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Kidderminster and others have quoted those well-worn words in which witnesses before the Commission gave their reasons for feeling that Schedule A should be abolished. Since the hon. Member for Kidderminster quoted them in so audible a fashion, I do not feel it necessary for me to repeat them.
I should, however, refer to the argument with which the Royal Commission countered that. Referring to the first argument quoted by the hon. Member for Kidderminster that notional income is not a fit subject for taxation, the Royal Commission said:
We think that the first argument ignores the principle that taxation should be adjusted to the relative capacity to pay of different taxpayers. There can be taxable income which is not received in cash. Living accommodation is a necessity of life and a taxpayer who does not own it is obliged to rent it: consequently an owner-occupier with a given income, paying no rent, has a larger taxable capacity than a tenant with the same income out of which he must meet liability for rent.
That is a fair argument. I am only trying to suggest that the arguments on this matter, as the Chancellor said, cut both ways.
Referring to the second argument quoted from the Royal Commission by the hon. Member,
that it is inequitable to tax the beneficial enjoyment of a right of occupation of real property when the income which could, by parity of reasoning, be attributed to the owners of other forms of property (e.g., motor cars) goes untaxed",
the Royal Commission said that that was a logical argument and that
Theoretically an income can be attributed to the possessors of many forms of chattels.
It went on to say, however, that it would be quite impracticable to extend to every

form of chattel the notional income associated with it and then to impose a tax upon it.
I am agreeing with the Chancellor that Royal Commission Reports are not necessarily sacrosanct. In recent years—I have already drawn the Committee's attention to this—a number of important judicial reports have been treated as the opposite of sacrosanct by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues, whether one thinks of the Devlin Report or, indeed, the, not judicial but highly authoritative Report on Monetary Policy by Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues, which the Chancellor has almost completely dismissed and rejected. I agree, however, that not in every case must we say that because a Royal Commission has reported that settles the issue for all time. The House of Commons has the final responsibility in these matters.
It is relevant to consider another report, not in any way binding on this country, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), the report of a Commission in Ireland. I am sure that hon. Members will bear with me when I say that my pronunciation of the language in question is a little less than perfect. My knowledge of the language is not very great. Reading it phonetically, however, this body is called An Coimisiún Um Chanachas Ioncaim. Some hon. Members will be able to pronounce it better. Translated, it means Commission on Income Taxation.
In its second report, that Commission recommended, as we have been told this afternoon, the virtual abolition of Schedule A, despite the strong plea to the contrary of the Irish Board of Revenue. I quote this Irish Commission because it represents a rather more up-to-date study of the problem than our own Royal Commission, which reported in 1955. The Irish Commission said:
Although, other things being equal, the owner-occupier might be regarded as having a greater taxable capacity than the person who has to rent a residence, income in the popularly accepted sense does not accrue from owner-occupation.
It will be agreed that if a notional income is attributed to a person's interest in an owner-occupied residence it is logical to treat similarly other durable assets such as furniture. As


a source of income there is no fundamental difference between them and a residence. The fact that a dwelling is a necessity for all families is regarded as strengthening the argument against taxing owner-occupation. Ownership of a necessity would appear to be, if anything, a less proper subject for taxation than ownership of amenities such as yachts or jewellery.
I know that the Chancellor will, perhaps, feel a little divided in the argument about yachts.

Mr. Amory: Not in the latter, about jewellery.

Mr. Wilson: No. The right hon. Gentleman is the last person I should associate with that.
The Irish Commission referred to the Irish experience in tax exemption on the interest on certain State securities. In Eire, as the Committee will know, such interest is exempt from Income Tax up to the tune of £25 a year. It is, of course, £15 a year in this country as far as Income Tax is concerned. The Irish Income Tax Commission proposed exempting property from Schedule A tax up to the first £30 and that any houses up to £30 rateable value should be totally exempted, while houses above that value should be exempted on the first £30 of taxable value. It went on to say that only one house per owner should qualify for this relief.
These are only recommendations of the Commission and the Irish Government have still to pronounce upon them, but I felt it right to quote these arguments in order that the Committee could be in full possession of the arguments both ways. It is clear that the theoretical arguments are very finely balanced. We have this question of whether notional income should be taxed. It is right to point out that it is taxed in other directions. For example, the company director who enjoys a flat in Central London or the occupation of an hotel suite in Park Lane is, in theory at any rate, taxed on the notional income resulting from that. I say in theory because I do not think that the Inland Revenue is tough enough in dealing with these cases.
6.0 p.m.
That is one example and there are others in which notional income or notional value of something not easily measured in monetary terms can be taxed. We on this side of the Commit

tee considered what new Clauses we should put down. Complete abolition features in one or two new Clauses proposed by hon. Members opposite. That would, on balance, help the higher taxpayer rather than the lower taxpayer. Between £30 million and £40 million is involved. If we have that sum to dispose of in tax reliefs, is this the most appropriate way of giving them at this time and in these conditions? It is for every Member to form his own conclusion about that.
There are certainly more urgent and deserving cases than this, quite apart from those involving State expenditure, such as old-age pensioners—cases of taxpayers who perhaps ought to be helped by tax remissions rather than by total exemption from Schedule A tax, for such exemption would include many people who may or may not be deserving but who are certainly not very needy. Some of the higher taxpayers would gain considerably from what is proposed. That is why we on this side have not felt able to go so far as to recommend total abolition of Schedule A tax.
However, we feel that there is a case for some relief and that that case logically follows from the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he drew the parallel between the man who had saved his money, invested it in some form of security, was taxed on the interest and had to pay rent, and the man who had invested in a house. In 1956, for the first time, this Committee gave remission of tax on £15 of Post Office Savings Bank interest. It is not the fault of this side of the Committee that that £15 was not extended to cover other forms of savings. We have pressed successive Chancellors to extend it, for example, to co-operative savings, and have gone into the Division Lobby in support of our proposals and will do so again. Since we have to that extent discriminated in favour of the saver who invests in the Post Office Savings Bank we think it not unreasonable to propose, by the same argument, a tax remission on Schedule A for the same figure, £15.

Mr. Nabarro: The principle is not the same. It might well be that a Surtax-payer is an owner-occupier of one of these houses up to £15. The Post Office Savings Bank concession to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring only


applies to interest being exempt from Income Tax up to £15, not to Surtax. If we accept the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause it would apply equally to Income Tax and to Surtax.

Mr. Wilson: We are not unaware of that. I can remember the present Prime Minister pointing out in 1956 not only that the £15 was Income Tax free but that it was grossed up for Surtax purposes. We were aware of it before the hon. Member for Kidderminster made his point earlier this afternoon. Whether our Clause is sufficiently well drafted or not, we make it clear that it refers to Income Tax only and not to Surtax. The phrase we use is "other than Surtax". I hope that we are right. We meant Income Tax only. It is entirely on a parity with the arrangements for taxing the interest from the Post Office Savings Bank, and our Clause would mean some equity as between the two types of saver.
It is very arguable, but it is fair vis-à-vis the man who saves his money and pays rent out of accumulated savings or interest received on it. I say frankly, however, that if our Clause were accepted it would still not be fair to the man who pays rent, for there is still no provision for rent rebate in taxation. We feel it right, therefore, to put forward our Clause against the background of our general policy on housing. It would be wrong if the Chancellor accepted our Clause and did nothing about those paying rent. Our Clause is defensible only if something is done to improve the position of the tenant who is paying rent. We are all aware that as a result of the Chancellor's policy—the abolition of the housing subsidies and the high interest rates that local authorities have to pay, a rate which apparently is to rise higher soon—new council houses involve a very much higher rent.
In my area—which is one of rather low average income—the rents for new houses have recently had to be raised to £2 7s. 6d. a week, entirely because of the Conservative Government's housing policy. If subsidies were restored and interest rates under the Public Works Loan Board were anything like the lower figures of a few years ago, those rents would be £1 a week lower. Only

on the assumption that something was to be done to help council house tenants would I recommend the Committee to accept our Clause. Yet if we dealt in this way with owner-occupiers and council house tenants, those paying rent to private landlords would, of course, be relatively unfairly treated unless we were to put forward at the same time, as we do—though it would be out of order to discuss them at present—proposals to ease, the difficult conditions being suffered under the Rent Act at present.

Mr. Fernyhough: They are already being unfairly treated. The tenant of a house who carries out repairs cannot claim a penny piece in Income Tax rebate nor get the money back from the landlord, but the owner-occupier is still given a maintenance allowance.

Mr. Wilson: That is a fair point, but I would be out of order if I pursued the subject of the unfairness of conditions under the Rent Act.

Mr. William Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would municipalise all rented property?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member is rather tedious. He knows that I should be out of order if I went into the whole question of what should be done for those in privately-owned rented houses. We have stated clearly upon a number of occasions what our proposals are in that direction. I am trying to keep in order, Sir William, with your tolerant acquiescence. We should not feel free to put forward a new Clause designed to give relief only to owner-occupiers unless we felt, at the same time, that we could sincerely commend to the Committee action to help bath council house tenants and those living in privately-owned rented properties.
On a number of occasions we have said that the repeal of the Government's Rent Act is the first step in the matter of bringing justice to these tenants. To go beyond that would be out of order. Our Clause does not go the whole way, and I know that it will disappoint some hon. Members opposite, but I believe that it is right and equitable, and brings justice not only as between the owner-occupier and the man who has saved and invested money, but also, on our assumptions as


to housing policy, as between the owner-occupier and the tenant, whether of privately-owned rented property or of council property.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Mr. A. R. Wise (Rugby) rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Wise: Predecessors of mine in this House used to go on for 20 minutes longer than they otherwise would have done whenever they received an interruption, however orderly. I therefore announce that if there is a further interruption I shall go on for 20 minutes longer than I otherwise would.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was of a curiously mixed character. He seemed to be sympathising a great deal with my right hon. Friend's statement that he could do nothing this year; in fact, he started his speech by saying that. But when he finished I was not quite certain whether he proposed to advise his supporters not to press their new Clause, so that they should not force some action this year. If he is proposing to press it I should like to reflect upon it very briefly.

Mr. H. Wilson: We certainly intend to press our new Clause in the Division Lobby. We also intend to provide helpful facilities to the hon. Member for Kidderminister (Mr. Nabarro) and other hon. Members who want to press their new Clauses—but we shall not be joining them in the Lobby. I thought that I should say that. As soon as the hon. Member finishes his speech he will find us ready to go through the Lobby.

Mr. Wise: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information.
I want to make it clear why I cannot support his new Clause. As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) said, Schedule A tax is a curious eccentricity. It is based upon a notional and hypothetical income, not on actual income. What I cannot understand is why the hypothesis should end at the sum of £15 a year. Is it any the less notional or hypothetical if it is £30, £50 or £100 a year?

Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Member tell us why the Prime Minister and the hon. Member's party put a limitation of £15 on the relief given in respect of

the interest on Post Office Savings Bank deposits? If that was right, this is.

Mr. Wise: That is a totally different matter. The limitation of £15 a year in that case was a limitation on actual income. If exception is taken to a tax on hypothetical values—as the hon. Member for Loughborough took exception to it—I merely ask why values should cease to be hypothetical when they pass a total of £15 a year. I am still at a loss to know why that should be.
6.15 p.m.
I am deeply sorry that the Chancellor was not a great deal more forthcoming. Nobody wanted too much to be done this year; I am sure that a slightly firmer undertaking to consider the matter carefully would have satisfied most of my hon. Friends—but we did not get it. In fact, we are getting a little tired of the curious theory that whenever purchasing power is released it is automatically inflationary. If new purchasing power is not created I cannot see that there can be any inflation. Whether £45 million is left with the payers of Schedule A tax, or is taken from them and spent by the Government, I cannot see that anything has been added to the inflationary or deflationary state of the country.
Indeed, it can be argued that some Schedule A taxpayers might have invested money and might have increased savings, thus producing a slight measure of deflation, whereas we can rest assured that any money which the Government get will not be used in any deflationary way but will be spent as fast as it is received.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Would it not be true to say that if my right hon. Friend did abolish a tax it would be increasing the purchasing power of the economy through the Budget but increasing the overall Budget deficit?

Mr. Wise: That has a bearing upon a point that I was going to make later. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor underestimated last year's surplus by over £300 million, which went towards reducing the under-the-line deficit. It is more than probable that exactly the same underestimate has been made this year, and that there is a margin with which my right hon. Friend can play.


In any case, the Budget deficit is best met not by taking more money from the taxpayers, but by slightly reducing Government expenditure. I do not regard it as beyond the bounds of possibility that if £45 million were devoted to the abolition of Schedule A tax that comparatively small sum, considered in relation in the £5,000 million or £6,000 million that we are spending a year, could be saved.
Therefore, I cannot accept the theory that any release of purchasing power must automatically be inflationary. Inflation can take place only if new money is created. If it is not there can be no inflation. I aim gravely disappointed at the Chancellor's attitude in this case. I agree largely with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) that this is a basic part of my party's philosophy. Whether or not it is strictly logical, or strictly in accordance with the highest principles of theoretical economics, the fact remains that if we want to create a property-owning democracy we must stop penalising people who own property. If we wish to encourage people to buy houses we must do rather more for them than we do for people who do not buy houses.
That means that we must have discrimination in favour of a particular class of taxpayer. That is not unknown; there are many classes of taxpayer in whose favour discrimination is made. The principle is not new. Nor, for that matter, is taxation itself an equitable matter. Any taxation must be full of anomalies if it is levied not for the purpose merely of carrying on Government business, but apparently as a means of regulating markets, distributing property and running the entire economy of the country.
Once we step out of the proper function of taxation, which is merely to provide the Government with enough money to govern and, instead, use it for other and, in my view, quite improper purposes, we are bound to create anomalies. Therefore, there is no reason why we should hold back from taking this action merely because it happens to be slightly anomalous.
The time has come when the abolition of Schedule A tax is becoming a national

demand. After all, although we in this Committee, are not delegates of the people, we are accustomed to pay some attention to their views and, despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, it is not only Conservative house-owners who are demanding the remission of Schedule A tax. There are house-owners who vote for the other two political parties, although I cannot understand why, because one of them seems to be pledged to bring about the abolition of house-owners and the other can do little to help them. But, in fact, this demand is becoming greater.
There is another thing. This tax is really one which is levied without any idea of how it should properly be assessed. Some time ago I took the trouble to write to the Treasury to ask if there was a basis for the assessment of the Schedule A tax. It was a very long time before I received an answer, which did not surprise me. But when I did get an answer it was, to all intents and purposes, an admission that there was no basis—it was done "by guess and by God" by various people all round the country. In my view, in itself that is a condemnation of this tax. Clearly, it is illogically assessed and, therefore, it should be done away with.
In this Committee there has been not one defender of this tax, save the Chancellor—who was rather a doubtful champion. I do not know whether any hon. Member opposite would like to maintain the Schedule A tax exactly as it stands today. From some of the interjections made during the various speeches I gathered that there is a section of hon. Members opposite which is firmly and solidly in favour of Schedule A, but it is not prepared to accept the party's decision in the matter. There is a section in favour of Schedule A, but unquestionably it is a very small section. In the Liberal Party, apparently, there is no one in favour of the tax. I have heard little support for it from hon. Members on this side of the Committee, even by way of interjection.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to take careful thought, before he winds up this debate, and consider whether he cannot give us a little more encouragement. None of us enjoys voting against our own side, but there is the principle in the House


of Commons that the vote follows the voice, and one cannot help oneself, unless a mild excuse is given which would enable us to refrain from pressing this matter to a Division.

Mr. Iremonger: I do not propose to impose on the patience of the Committee for more than a few minutes. On the last occasion on which the Committee considered this question I abstained from voting against my right hon. Friend because, if I may quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 15th June last year, my right hon. Friend did not, in my words,
stand firm by the tax, root and branch and on principle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 60.]
On this occasion I intend to support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby because I supported him in his Budget and in his analysis of the economic situation. Having done that, I do not think that it would be fair to turn round on this particular tax point and oppose him. At the same time, I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend is still of an open mind, and I am just a little disappointed that he did not give us quite as clear an assurance as we should like to have that, in due course and in the proper circumstances, this tax is earmarked to be the first to go.
I do not think that this is properly argued on a question of tax theory. When it comes to theoretical considerations, if anything, the balance of argument is, in my opinion, in favour of the Schedule A tax. Therefore, I do not oppose it on theory. I oppose the Schedule A tax because I think that it should be abolished as a straightforward act of avowed social policy. I think it right that the Government should distort the pure theoretical interpretation of tax principles, if necessary, in favour of desired social ends, and the social end I want to see promoted by the abolition of the Schedule A tax is the ownership of private property by owner-occupiers.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not only keep his mind open, but will be a little less open to theoretical argument and realise that I and my hon. Friends are firmly convinced that it is right that the tax should be abolished. I am not prepared—I do not think it would be fair—to press that

on my right hon. Friend now. But it is a tax against which many of us feel very bitterly and we consider it high time that it was put quite avowedly at the top of my right hon. Friend's list for abolition.

Mr. J. Grimond: I share the views of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) about this tax, but last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer made almost exactly the same speech as he has made this year. The reason he gave last year for wanting further time to consider the matter was that he was giving away so much in his Budget. The reason he wants time for further consideration this year is that he has put on extra taxation. It would be interesting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what sort of Budget it will be in which he can eventually remove this tax.

Mr. Iremonger: I agree with the hon. Member that the Chancellor will not be able to get away with this indefinitely. [HON. MEMBERS: "He will not be there."] Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that when one speaks of the Chancellor one is referring to the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for Government policy at any given moment.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Policy changes with the Minister.

Mr. Iremonger: No doubt the policy would be changed minute by minute had we a Chancellor from the party opposite in office. But there is a theme and a thread running through Conservative policy which means that we can rely on the fact that a promise given by one right hon. Gentleman will be honoured by the right hon. Gentleman who follows him.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain in what way he establishes a continuity of policy between the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his immediate predecessor?

Mr. Iremonger: If my memory serves me right, my right hon. Friend's immediate predecessor resigned because he did not approve of the policy of the Cabinet, which was that of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. So, in fact, the policy


of the Government has been entirely continuous, and on this occasion—he does not often do it—I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has shot himself down in flames.
I do not wish to detain the Committee further—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—unless, of course, I am unduly provoked. Provided that I am not actually asked to sit down, I am about to do so—

Mr. John Paton: Sit down.

Mr. Iremonger: I feel obliged to stand my ground, if only merely to repeat that I propose to support by right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Sir William. Can you give the Committee some guidance at this stage? Presumably the new Clause of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) is to be voted on now. That is the Question to be put. The second new Clause which we discussed with it, the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, which is No. 19 on the Notice Paper—

Mr. Ellis Smith: There will be two Divisions.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but the point I am trying to make is that although there will be two Divisions—and I shall tell in the second Division—the second Division will not take place—as I understand it—until new Clause No. 19 on the Notice Paper is reached, which may well be in two hours' time. Is that correct?

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Yes, I appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. I had intended, as is the usual practice, to call the Clauses in the order in which they stand on the Notice Paper. Therefore, the second Division to which he refers will not take place until we reach new Clause No. 19.

Mr. Nabarro: That may be in several hours' time.

The Deputy-Chairman: As the hon. Gentleman says, it may be in several hours' time.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very much obliged.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. We had it from the Chair that the three new Clauses would be debated together and then voted on individually, but if they were debated together why should the Divisions not follow each other?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee will recollect that it is not infrequent to have debates on more than one Amendment or new Clause at the same time, but for the votes to be taken separately on each as it is come to and not out of turn. In Erskine May it is laid down quite clearly that procedure on new Clauses is that they are considered in the order in which they stand on the Notice Paper. Although discussion has been allowed to range over all these three new Clauses, we shall, in fact, consider each Clause separately when it is put from the Chair. In that way we must wait until we reach the new Clause—Exemption from Schedule A for owner-occupiers—vote on that and afterwards wait until we reach the new Clause—Abolition of Schedule A income tax—before we have Division on that new Clause.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Sir William. What you are saying is always the principle followed in any Finance Bill. Surely there cannot be any argument about it. That is laid down, but, if this is inconvenient to hon. Members opposite, I suggest through you that they could have avoided it by being a little slippier in putting down new Clauses.
If they had been as quick as we were in putting down a new Clause, it would have followed ours. Then we could have voted on them in succession, but, having failed to do that, I suggest that if they are afraid they might not be present later when the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is called it would be in order for them to join us in the Lobby and vote for the new Clause under discussion.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I think that goes beyond what concerns the Chair.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 259.

Division No. 107.
AYES
[6.33 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick


Ainsley, William
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, Norman


Albu, Austen
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hilton, A. V.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, Stan
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holt, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Beaney, Alan
Howell, Charles A.
Randall, Harry


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hoy, James H
Rankin, John


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood(Brist'l, S. E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, William


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, William
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robinson, Kenneth (Sir Pancras, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowles, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Boyden, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jeger, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Callaghan, James
Jones, T W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chetwynd, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. Horace
Steele, Thomas


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, John
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stonehouse, John


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stones, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Darling, George
Logan, David
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingier, Stephen


Deer, George
McCann, John
Sylvester, George


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, James
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Diamond, John
Mackie, John
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, Norman
Mahon, Simon
Thornton, Ernest


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Manuel, A. C.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Marsh, Richard
Timmons, John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mason, Roy
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Albert
Mendelson, J. J.
Warbey, William


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Dingle
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, Walter
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mort, D. L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Gooch, E. G.
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Grimond, J.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Gunter, Ray
Pargiter, G. A.



Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pavitt, Laurence
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.


Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Hart, Miss Judith






NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Beamish, Col. Tufton
Boyle, Sir Edward


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Braine, Bernard


Allason, James
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Brewis, John


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald(Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Brooman-White, R.


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bidgood, John C.
Bryan, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Bullard, Denys


Balniel, Lord
Bingham, R. M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Barber, Anthony
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Bishop, F. P.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Barter, John
Bossom, Clive
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Batsford, Brian
Box, Donald
Cary, Sir Robert


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

New Clause.—(EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE DUTY ON SCOTTISH SHALE OIL.)

(1) On and after the third day of August, nineteen hundred and sixty, hydrocarbon oil produced from shale mined in Scotland shall be exempted from excise duty, and accordingly, on and after that date section two of the

Finance Act, 1950 (which imposes a duty on hydrocarbon oils), shall have effect with the addition at the end of subsection (2) of that section of the following words, that is to say,
or
(c) to oils produced from shale mined in Scotland".

(2) The powers of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to make regulations under section one hundred and ninety-eight of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 (which empowers those Commissioners to make regulations relating to hydrocarbon oils), shall include power to make such regulations as appear to the Commissioners to be required to give effect to the last foregoing subsection.

(3) Where excise duty has been charged before or after the passing of this Act, and by virtue of this section no such duty should have been charged, or the duty should have been charged at the lower rate than that at which it was in fact charged, the person by whom the duty was paid shall be entitled to repayment of the amount of the overcharge.—[Mr. J. Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Taylor: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose and intention of the Clause is clearly stated in the rubric. It is to exempt from Excise Duty Scottish shale oil—oil produced from shale mined in Scotland. There is no intention of asking for exemption from Excise Duty of any other kind of indigenous hydrocarbon oil. It is strictly confined to the shale oil product.
We recognise that oil produced from shale is not the only indigenous oil produced in Britain. More oil is produced as a by-product of coal than from the oil-bearing shale mined in the Lothians of Scotland. Some oil is produced from natural deposits, mainly in Nottinghamshire, and, incidentally, this is all refined in the refineries of the shale oil plants in the Lothians. But, apart from the small yield from native wells, the shale oil industry is the only indigenous oil industry which produces oil as its main product. In all other British oil-producing industries, the oil is a byproduct; it is an incidental product of a larger industry. That is why the Clause deals with Excise Duty only on oil produced from Scottish-mined shale.
Nowhere in Britain is oil produced from shale except on the shalefields of West Lothian and Midlothian. Moreover, the Scottish shale oil industry is the world's pioneer oil industry. It was the first fuel oil industry in the world. The first fuel oil ever produced was a product of my constituency, first as paraffin from cannel coal and later as oil from shale mined from the then rich shale deposits in West Lothian and Midlothian. It has been said in previous debates on this issue that it is interesting

to recall that the very first oil to reach the United States was transported from my constituency about 150 years ago.
In previous attempts to secure the remission of this crippling tax on the industry, I have outlined its exciting and romantic history. I do not propose to repeat that history tonight, but I will briefly outline the present position of the industry and state some of the reasons why I submit that the remission of duty is economically essential to the industry's survival and is morally the right and fair course for the Treasury to pursue.
The oil product from shale is Dery—diesel engined vehicle fuel—and motor spirit, both of very high quality. These products are both sold from pumps at prices which are fixed by the big oil combines. In other words, the shale oil industry has to sell its product at a price determined by its competitors and not, as is the normal commercial practice, at the cost of production plus a reasonable profit margin.
The cost of producing oil from shale is greater than the cost of oil from the oil wells of the Middle East, Mexico, Venezuela, Texas or anywhere else. That is now frankly admitted and as frankly stated. In other words, the apparent, visible cost of Middle East oil is less than the gross cost of shale-produced indigenous oil. The costs of wayleaves, royalties, pipelines, tankers and refineries—all these costs of desert oil—are borne by the oil companies.
But the unseen costs of desert oil are borne by the taxpayers at large—for the cost of safeguarding our sources of supply in a vulnerable part of the world, the cost of armies, navies and air forces stationed in barren, uncomfortable and expensive places, is a heavy and unseen overhead cost on imported, desert-produced oil. We all help to pay to maintain our supplies by bearing, as taxpayers, our share of that cost. No such cost is incurred by the nation for home-produced oil or, for that matter, for coal or atomic energy. For that reason alone, but among several others, it is wise for the nation to conserve, encourage and, indeed, nurture every possible source of indigenous oil.
The Scottish shale oil industry has for several years been completely unable, because of these factors, to make a


trading profit on its main product—oil. For as many years as I have been advocating the abolition of the duty on shale oil, the industry has made a trading loss and has been able to survive so long only because of the small profits which it makes on the by-products of the industry—detergents, sulphate of ammonia, industrial wax, bricks from spent shale and several others. Only because of the profits made from this source has it been able to survive, plus a very drastic, indeed ruthless, contraction of the industry during the past three years.
We saw this morning that the price of motor spirit has been reduced by ld. a gallon. This news would come in the shape of a great disaster to the shale oil industry in Scotland, because, as I pointed out, the price of its product is determined by the large oil companies. This reduction of Id. per gallon, although it is welcome news to the vast multitude of motorists in this country, is a shock, and may be an irreparable blow, unless we can secure the acceptance of this new Clause today, for this traditional and otherwise healthy Scottish industry.
In common with other indigenous oil, the duty on shale oil is 1s. 3d. per gallon. In previous debates, in which the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury has had no part—and I welcome a new face on the Treasury Bench in dealing with this subject—some of his predecessors who dealt with similar new Clauses have treated them with contempt, if not indeed with contumely. Others have been more kindly towards them. Two years ago, when the unanswerable nature of this Clause was recognised on all sides of the House, with all party support for it, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had a very uncomfortable time when replying to the debate, because he could only stick to his brief from the Treasury and repeat the previous decision on this new Clause in the face of the arguments, which, as the debate developed, became obviously stronger and more and more unanswerable.
There has been one common factor to all the previous answers to the plea I am making. The Government have advanced two rather curious reasons why the Clause should not be accepted. The first was that because imported motor spirit pays duty at the rate of 2s. 6d. per

gallon, therefore the indigenous oil is enjoying a subsidy of 1s. 3d. a gallon. The second argument was that it would not be practicable to make a reduction of the duty on shale oil without similarly reducing the duty on all other forms of indigenous hydro-carbon oils. As to the latter argument, the difficulty exists only in the mind of the Government. Everyone else recognises the simple fact that when a business is being strangled by taxation there is a special case for saving that business by reducing or abolishing taxation. Everyone recognises that as oil is the main product of the shale industry, and is a by-product of other sections of the indigenous hydro-carbon oil industry, there is a specially strong case for remission.
As to the first argument—that the industry, instead of being taxed, is actually being subsidised—it is surely a strange dictum which claims that if we impose a strangling, and in this case a swingeing, tax on an industry we are not really killing it but helping it by subsidising it because the other fellow has to pay a still heavier tax. The amount of the subsidy is the amount of the difference between the duty which this industry pays and that which other sections of the industry are paying. I do not think that that is a very logical and very defensible argument, and I hope it will not be advanced again. As a matter of fact, this industry has never had a ha'penny of subsidy in all the 150 years of its existence, but it has paid millions of pounds in tax into the Exchequer during that period.
At one time, at the height of its prosperity, the industry employed over 9,000 people. Its present labour force is less than 2,500, who are constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill). Only five years ago, its labour force was 5,000, and that recent very severe contraction was directly and entirely due to the Excise Duty on its product, which rendered it unable to compete with other forms of oil. A few years ago, the cost of this remission which I am now suggesting would have been about £1 million in a fiscal year. At the present time, it will cost the Exchequer about a quarter of that sum, or a little more, but it would save the industry from extinction.
At present, the labour force in the industry is unable to secure the normal wane increases which have applied over


the last few years in similar industries and in neighbouring industries. Indeed, if anybody is having a subsidy, it is the Exchequer, not the industry, and the persons who are paying that subsidy are those employed in the industry, who are content to carry on at lower rates of wages than those in the mining industry and its subsidiary industries and other forms of mining enjoyed. Yet, such is the pride of the people engaged in this industry in its traditions and past records, that they have stood by it with a loyalty which is remarkable, despite the sacrifices entailed by so doing to their standard of living.
This pride and this high regard for the industry is not confined to those employed in it. It extends all over Scotland. All Scotland has a special interest in this industry and in the fate of this new Clause today. The fate of the Scottish shale oil industry has become almost symbolical in Scotland. It will be regarded as a test of the Government's sincerity in their protestations of their concern for Scotland's industrial future whether they accept or once more reject this new Clause. Remission will enable the industry to continue. Rejection will, if not immediately, and it may very well be very soon, as a result of the decrease in the retail price of petrol, lead to its demise.
Therefore, the Treasury will lose its quarter of a million pounds in any case. If it insists upon its pound of flesh by rejecting this new Clause, the industry will perish, and the Treasury will lose the revenue from it. That revenue will disappear, along with over 2,000 jobs and a famous industry in which Scotland has pioneered the world. Is it not much better, much more sensible, much more economic and much more gracious for the Treasury voluntarily to offer this blood transfusion to the industry and thus continue to receive some revenue in the shape of normal taxation through the various Schedules and through P.A.Y.E. which it receives from an operating concern?
7.0 p.m.
So, if the Treasury is blind to the plight of the workers and their families dependent on the industry, if the Treasury is deaf to appeals to make this minor effort to save a traditional Scottish and British industry, if the Treasury is

abysmally ignorant of the need to conserve every possible source of home-produced oil, let it regard this solely from the viewpoint of economic self interest.
If the industry dies, the Treasury will suffer and the nation will be poorer. If the Clause is accepted, the Treasury will continue to have some revenue from it. What is more important, the industry will have a chance to continue as an efficient British industry providing jobs and livelihood for men and women and oil for the nation as long as the shale measures last. There are still many years of life in the shale measures. It would be a sad and tragic thing for my constituents if this industry died and all the skills which have grown up over the years were spread out over a wider field of endeavour.
The Treasury tonight at an infinitesimally small cost in comparison to our national income and national taxation Revenue could save the industry, give it a shot in the arm, give it encouragement, enable those employed in it to have the wage increases which are so long overdue to them, and maintain a traditional industry of which this nation has long been proud.
For those reasons, I hope that this time the Economic Secretary will have a more kindly and helpful story to tell us than his predecessors have had.

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. Mr. Thomas, I rise to ask whether you will accept a Motion to report Progress, on the ground that we are debating this important new Clause, which has been debated in past years, without a single representative of the Scottish Office on the Government Front Bench, which I think is scandalous, and without a representative of the Board of Trade, which ought to be doing something to get industry to the area affected. The fact that there are only about three Conservative back benchers present is perhaps not material to the Motion I seek to move.
I submit to you, Mr. Thomas, that the absence of a representative from the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade and the complete lack of interest on the part of Her Majesty's Government is utterly deplorable. We hope to move to report Progress to give them a chance to be here.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. G. Thomas): I cannot accept the Motion to report Progress at this stage.

Mr. Wilson: Further to that point of order. I obviously cannot move the Motion if you, Mr. Thomas, will not allow me to move it. Perhaps the fact that we have sought to move it will give the Government an opportunity to repair a great discourtesy to my hon. Friends and send out the one remaining Whip they have around the place to find the Secretary of State for Scotland or some of his Under-Secretaries so that, unless the Government intend to accept the new Clause, they can see the serious state of affairs created—not one of them has heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor)—and can take other action and reassure the Committee on this question.

Mr. J. Hill: I support this Clause, representing a neighbouring constituency entirely concerned with shale oil in Scotland. My area in Midlothian has been scheduled under the Local Employment Act because of an unemployment figure of 4·8 per cent. An unemployment figure of that size is nothing new in my area. For some years we have been trying to attract new industry into the area to employ the people displaced from the shale oil industry over a period of years. So far we have been unsuccessful.
The Government have told us that they are unable to direct industry into any scheduled area. They have an opportunity here, not to direct an industry but to help keep an industry alive. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) mentioned the stranglehold which there has been on shale oil for some years. He mentioned also that ours was the first country to produce oil. I believe that the name of the man who started this was "Paraffin" Young, and Scottish oils are the follow-on of "Paraffin" Young's foresight in starting this industry in the Lothians.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian said, the industry used to employ many thousands. It is reduced now to a miserable 2,500. Yet this is an industry which supplies four-fifths of the diesel oil for Scottish public transport. It produces 5,000 tons of paraffin wax per year, which would otherwise have

to be imported from America, costing very precious dollars. If the industry goes to the wall, it will add an estimated 10 per cent. to the unemployment figure already existing in that part of Scotland. Ninety-eight per cent. of the produce of the industry is of some value to this country. There is only 2 per cent. waste from it.
Shale oil in Scotland, and especially in my constituency, has been one of the basic industries. In Midlothian we have only three basic industries—shale oil, coal and paper. There is same doubt whether paper will be able to survive the Outer Seven agreement, although the Government say that it will. The employers in the paper industry have a different opinion.
The money accruing to the Government from the tax of 1s. 3d. per gallon is £660,000 per year. I learned that from a Question I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer some months ago. If the Government allow the industry to go to the wall, it will cost more than that to pay the men unemployment benefit throughout the years they will be idle.
Some miners employed in shale oil have twice become redundant within a period of less than five years as a result of the closure of shale pits when coal was booming. Some of those men were directed to coal pits. Since then, those coal pits have been closed. The men had devoted 45 years' work to producing shale oil in the area. It would be worth the Government's while to forgo what they receive from this tax, always remembering what they spend in other directions. They should forgo this money and allow the industry to prosper. We do not ask for any new industry. All we ask for is some assistance to keep our remaining industry going.
I toured my constituency during the Recess, and spoke to the people employed in this area. They are watching the Government very carefully to see whether they are honest in their proposals to reduce unemployment figures in Scotland. If those proposals are not honest, it will be held against the Government at the appropriate time. My predecessor, Mr. Pryde, argued this case without success in this House for some years, and I appeal now to the Chancellor to allow this great industry to continue. Otherwise, unemployment in


Midlothian will increase—and increase rapidly. It is now up to the Government to do something. We hope that they will do it.

Mr. A. Woodburn: My constituency, also, borders on West Lothian. Moreover, it is over forty years since I got to know the miners there very well. They and their leaders were an exceptionally fine set of men, and some of the leaders were regarded as the statesmen of a very difficult mining industry. At all times, there was the utmost co-operation between these miners and the oil industry to keep it going during a very difficult period—even, as has been said, sometimes doing so by the subsidy of the low wages and hard work of the miners themselves.
I am fairly sure, of course, that, when dealing with the economics of this problem, the Financial Secretary may be able to argue that were the industry not in existence the Government could get more money from oil and that, therefore, they are losing something. I do not think that that is the issue at all. The issue is, quite squarely: is it the Government's policy to keep this industry ticking over during the latter part of its life?
To allow the industry to die would be a considerable waste, but a far worse waste would be that of human beings. Men who have given forty years to shale mining cannot just adapt themselves to new industries. We welcome to the area the great British Motor Corporation—it is coming right into the centre of the area that originally made the motor car possible—but it will not be very easy for men of 40, 50 or, perhaps, 60 years of age to adapt themselves to a new modern industry when they have given their lives to this one. Therefore, the threatened closing down would really mean a sacrifice of men and women.
7.15 p.m.
Quite apart from the economics of it all, there is a social problem, and I should like the Financial Secretary to tell us what is the Government's attitude to it. Are these men to be thrown on the scrap heap merely because circumstances now allow us to get oil that runs out of the ground in different parts of the world? The economic aspect has nothing to do with the men who produce this shale

oil. Obviously, if there were no oil wells, this shale oil would sell very profitably, as it did in early days, but it cannot compete now with the oil that runs out of the ground.
We have other industries that are in the same position. If farming were to be treated merely as a matter of economics, what would happen to it? There would be no people left on great stretches of land unless we agreed, as a matter of social policy, that the country should maintain its agricultural industry. We do not maintain agriculture altogether for its own sake, because much of its produce could be bought more cheaply from abroad. We maintain it because it is necessary to build up and maintain men and women on the land. For that reason, as a social policy, we make possible an economically sound agriculture industry.
The same policy should apply here. It is not easy to attract other industries to this area. Many of the shale mining villages are up towards the Pentland Hills, and it is not likely that industry will ever go there. Unless something is done, houses, schools and social institutions, as well as the men, will be rendered redundant. There will be great waste from a social point of view, and it is, therefore, desirable that over 2,000 men should have a means of earning their living.
They do not want to live on doles, or charity, or anything of that kind. They are prepared to work to earn their living, and wish to be allowed to do so. The Government's policy should be to provide the means. If the continuance of this industry means that the Government are not getting some money that they would otherwise get—well, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) has put the amount at £250,000, and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) has calculated what lies on the other side of the balance sheet.
The Government have two responsibilities. They have a considerable interest in the oil company that owns the Scottish shale mines—British Petroleum. The amount involved here is a mere bagatelle in the petroleum company's finances. They lost more than that in one day's quarrel with Persia. If it is inconvenient to keep the industry going because of difficulty in separating Scottish oil and other oil there, then—although they seem to do


it now with the present subsidy, as they call it—surely they can promise that the British petroleum industry will not allow this small industry to go to the wall as long as it is able to tick over and earn its living, so that these men may be able to work until the industry tapers off gradually.
The whole oil industry started here, and it might any day become quite valuable again. So long as the shale measures are there, they should be worked, and the people willing to work them should be allowed to do so. The houses should not be allowed to become derelict, as some already have become. People from Edinburgh use some of them as country cottages—miles from anywhere. On the other hand, here we have still some thriving villages in which live good, sturdy Scottish people who want to finish their lives at work. I ask the Government to tackle this not so much as an economic, but as a social problem much as we do in the case of the farming industry in the remoter parts. The Government should have a settled policy that, whether it is done through British Petroleum, or by remission of taxation, they will take such steps as are necessary to ensure that this shale oil industry carries on.

Mr. Willis: It is two years since we last debated this matter. We then had a representative of the Scottish Office with us from the beginning of the debate—I am glad to see that a Scottish Minister has at last come into the Chamber. On that occasion, a number of hon. Members opposite supported a similar new Clause, and I am alarmed that that does not appear to be the case tonight. Before the election we heard a lot of speeches from the other side about the necessity of maintaining this industry.
Another feature of the debate two years ago is that when that debate took place unemployment in Scotland was only half what it is today. Therefore, while this matter was important at that time, it is far more important now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) has said, this matter is very important for Midlothian. I know the difficulties of Midlothian because I represent a small portion of that area, although not the portion with which we are immediately

concerned at the moment, and I am constantly having drawn to my attention the fact that no new industries have gone to Midlothian since the war.
What is the situation? It is well known in the Committee that unemployment in Scotland is the most serious issue that faces us. We have debated what has now become the Local Employment Act, and on numerous occasions we have approached Ministers with questions and deputations on this issue. We cannot afford to see any industry, no matter how small, disappear.
As I said on a former occasion, I can understand a United Kingdom Minister looking upon this as a small matter. Such a Minister views the economy in terms of 50 million people, in terms of huge industrial conurbations in the Midlands, London, Lancashire and South Yorkshire. When one is dealing with these huge industrial conurbations, a small thing like the Scottish shale oil industry does not seem to matter very much. It employs 2,500 men and, no doubt, a United Kingdom Minister would say "After all, we have managed to get the motor car industry to go somewhere near that area." But to Scotland it is of far greater importance and significance than that. To us 2,500 jobs are important.
We cannot afford to see any of our industrial potential untapped and unused simply because we as a country lack the will to use it. Up to the present the Government have not shown the will to develop this potential. We have been given the most ridiculous excuses. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) said, the reasons given on the last occasion that we debated this matter were ridiculous. We were told that the industry was already getting a subsidy and that we could not give it a larger subsidy. That is a strange doctrine coming from a Government who are lavishing millions on all sorts of other industries—not a mere £250,000 but £50 million, £60 million and so on. The cotton industry is getting £40 million. One could go through the list and it would take a long time.

Mr. H. Wilson: The £40 million is the figure which was quoted by Ministers to mislead the Committee a year ago, but during the election campaign they


said that it would be £60 million but that they dared not tell Parliament that it would be as much as that.

Mr. Willis: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Tory Party always dresses things up very well before an Election. That is why we had so many Tory Members here last time we debated this subject. This is a strange doctrine to come from this Government, that we cannot afford £250,000, when all over the country they are lavishing millions on private enterprise of every kind to encourage and develop it. That is not good enough.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: They would not even lose £250,000.s

Mr. Willis: As my hon. Friend says, they would not lose it. This is a tax, and all they are being asked to do is to remit the tax. They are not being asked to pay out anything.
I am sorry to see that once again a United Kingdom Minister is to answer this debate. This might seem a small point, but it is exceedingly important from the point of view of Midlothian. It is a very important industry in view of the employment that it provides, and the whole matter is very important because of the social issues which are involved, and which my hon. Friend mentioned. It is also important because it is symbolic of the Government's attitude and intentions towards Scotland. If the Government are really sincere, if they want genuinely to create and build up the Scottish economy and to get rid of unemployment in Scotland, this is one thing which the Government could do to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that the Government want to do the things they say they do.
Up to the present, whenever we have argued about this issue we have been told that we have had legislation which treats Scotland in a manner similar to that in which England is treated. I believe, as I think most of my colleagues believe, that Scotland requires something more than that. This is not a question of coming along with a begging bowl; it is facing up to the economic facts of the situation. Because of the situation in Scotland and its particular problems, something more is required. Scotland requires special treatment. It

might be special treatment for which we are asking tonight when we ask for the complete revision of this duty, but it is not on a very large scale. A sum of £250,000 is almost as much as the Royal honeymoon cost. Surely the Government cannot say that we are unable to afford as much as that honeymoon cost in order to save an old and valuable industry in Scotland.
I hope the Economic Secretary will have a much better story to tell us than we had on the last occasion. We certainly got no hope from the last debate. I do not think there has been an improvement in the industry since then. In fact, I believe the industry is now steadily declining. This is a raw material that we possess. We possess very few raw materials in this country, and we possess this one in considerable quantities. Why should we not use it? It would help considerably and it would also be an indication of the Government's attitude towards problems in Scotland. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will give us a favourable reply and will accept this Clause.

Mr. Hector Hughes: This proposed new Clause has been moved and supported in able speeches. I would not dream of addressing the Committee on the technical side of shale oil because I do not know anything about it, but I do say that if the Government refuse to accept this new Clause it will be the mark of their shame. It will be the acid test of their insincerity.
Coming from north Aberdeen, I extend my sympathy to the people of the south-east of Scotland, in the shale oil area, who are suffering from the Government's insincerity. We in Aberdeen know the promises that have been made, that new industries would be brought to Aberdeen, that old industries would be assisted and existing industries extended. Here is an existing industry which is languishing because of the burden of taxation which it bears. If the Government are sincere in their expressions of sympathy and in their expressed intention to promote industry in Scotland, here is an opportunity to save that existing industry from destruction.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) that the industry formerly employed 9,000 workers and now the number is only a quarter of that, about 2,500. It would be a shame to allow the industry to be wiped out because of the burden of taxation upon it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) spoke of the social implications. Here is a community of people brought up in one industry who know no other industry. If it is wiped out, they will be in great social difficulties. They will have to scatter just as some of the people of Aberdeen, deprived of their work in the shipyards, have had to go down to Luton in Bedfordshire.
The break-up of communities in that way is bad for social and family life. It is wrong economically. I beg the Government to look at the matter not just as economists but as human beings. They must extend their sympathy to this languishing industry. They must remove the present burden from it and give it an opportunity to recuperate and expand for the benefit of the community in which it exists.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I hope that the Minister who is to reply will have taken due note of the concern felt by Scottish Members on this side of the Committee and will have taken note also of the complete indifference of Scottish Members on his own side of the Committee in what is an extremely important social problem, though a rather insignificant one financially from the Treasury's point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has a mind which runs in channels parallel to my own. He referred to the cost of the Royal honeymoon. I wish to refer to the cost of hobby farming. A month or two ago, in answer to a Question which I put, it was stated that hobby farmers in Scotland were costing the Revenue more than £1 million a year, exclusive of Surtax. In other words, hobby farmers in Scotland were filching from the Treasury four times the amount we are asking for to save one industry.
Who would have thought that, in the United Kingdom as a whole or in Scot

land in particular, within twelve months of a General Election, Scottish Members would be fighting not for new industry but to preserve an old one? The General Election in Scotland was fought on the precise issue of unemployment. The Government lost in Scotland, and it is no wonder. They would have lost much more heavily if people had known what kind of response we were to receive in this debate from the Government side.
There was not even a representative of the Scottish Office present until pressure was exerted from this side of the Committee. In any case, even though the Scottish Office is now represented, we shall not hear a word from it, I suspect. Are we to hear from the Scottish Office? We ought to. Scottish Ministers ought to be very intimately concerned with the problem, and they ought to make their own representations. I should like to know whether the Scottish Office made representations to the Treasury before this debate to ensure that the Treasury knew what the facts were from both the financial and the social point of view.
I live on the other side of the Forth from this industry. I represent a coal mining area. When the coal mining industry was expanding, shale miners came across and took their place in the coal mining industry. They had to suffer social dislocation, of course; they had to take up their roots in the Lothians, cross the Forth, and set down new roots in Fife; but they could do that in the context of an expanding coal mining industry. These conditions no longer exist. If the men in the shale oil industry have to be unemployed now, they will face increasing difficulty in finding alternative employment in coal mining in Fife.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) referred to the decrease in petroleum retail prices recently announced. Of course, that pressure will become worse and the competitive position of the shale oil industry in Scotland will deteriorate. Even if the Government accept the new Clause, we must have no illusions about the future difficulties of the industry, although, of course, such a move would help. My hon. Friends are quite right to assert that this is the test of the Government's sincerity in their attempts to deal with unemployment in Scotland.


That is what the Clause is about. It is not about £250,000. It is about the Government's sincerity in tackling unemployment in the worst hit area of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will address himself to the matter in those terms when he comes to reply.

Mr. H. Wilson: Some months ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) raised the question of whether the proceedings of the House should be televised. I cannot help feeling that it would be extremely goad for the country if some of the proceedings on this Finance Bill were televised. Two or three weeks ago, when we were debating the position of dividend strippers, tax dodgers and the rest, the benches opposite were crowded, packed with hon. Gentlemen ostensibly fighting for the rights of the ordinary taxpayer but, in fact, putting up a strong rearguard action against their own Chancellor who was attempting to interfere with some of the ill-begotten forms of tax dodging.
Today, in contrast, we are debating the problems of a small industry in Scotland, small in the numbers it employs and small, certainly, in political influence—that is very obvious—yet an industry which, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, has great social importance and a long history. It has made its own contribution to the economic life of Scotland and, indeed, of the United Kingdom. During the greater part of the debate, there have been four hon. Members on the back benches opposite. On the Front Bench there has been the unhappy Economic Secretary to the Treasury. At least, I hope he is unhappy, unless he intends to accept the new Clause. During part of the debate, there has been a representative of the Scottish Office present but he has not risen to say a word yet. I shall be very glad to give way now if he wants to speak. He should at least have the decency to apologise for not being here until sent for.
We have had present the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He has a lot to live down in this respect because one of his Predecessors in office gave a pledge three years ago which has not been honoured. We have had one or two Whips present, and now we have the Patronage Secretary. Throughout the

debate so far there have been hardly any Scottish Unionist Members present—is that what they are called up there?—

Mr. Willis: That is not what the ordinary people call them.

Mr. Wilson: I am well aware of that. Only three or four Scottish Tories have been present and not one of them has spoken, in contradistinction to what happened two years ago when, at any rate, one or two hon. Members opposite spoke, and spoke very powerfully, on behalf of this industry which has suffered for two years more since we last debated its difficulties. I will leave that point now. As I say, if these debates were televised and they were put out on the Scottish television service, they would have a profound effect. I am sure, in displaying the fundamental hypocrisy of hon. Members opposite on some of these tax questions.
As my hon. Friends have reminded the Committee, we have debated the problems of the Scottish shale oil industry and the Excise Duty upon it more than once in recent years. I very much welcome the arrival in his place of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He is not himself a Scotsman, but he will, I think, remember that when he was Financial Secretary he made an important speech during the debate on a new Clause similar to this three years ago. I should like to remind the Committee of what he said. He rejected the proposed remission of Excise Duty. He called on the Committee to reject the proposed new Clause, but he held out the very clear hope that other assistance would be given to the industry. I repeat the word "industry" because there have been attempts since to pretend that what he was talking about was not the industry but the area. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who was then the Financial Secretary, said:
I repeat that that does not mean"—
he was referring to the rejection of the proposed new Clause—
that because the fiscal method is impracticable—and certainly highly unselective—there may be no case for other means being used for the assistance of the industry, as the hon. Member himself mentioned. That is not a question for the Treasury. I am concerned here only with the fiscal question. I would ask the Committee, however, not to deduce


that, because I feel obliged to advise it against making a concession upon the Excise Duty, the Government are unaware of the difficulties under which the shale oil industry is placed, and that for this reason the application of other means is necessarily ruled out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1957; Vol. 572, c. 997–8.]
It was a little more tortuous than some of the hon. Member's more recent speeches. When he was at the Dispatch Box, he sometimes lacked that clarity and vigour which we always associated with his rather freer speeches. However, anyone hearing that speech could have been in no doubt that the Government were considering, not the provision of alternative employment for those displaced in the industry, but help for the industry. They rejected the proposal for fiscal easement but they were considering other help for the industry. In view of that pledge, one would have thought that something would have happened.
Two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself replied to the debate on this matter, and I am sorry, despite his burdens, that he has not been here tonight to hear what has been said by my hon. Friend. The Chancellor tried to wriggle out of the commitment of his hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary. He even went so far as to say that there had not been a pledge given to consider help for the industry but only a pledge to provide alternative employment. Some of my hon. Friends showed what an empty pledge that was. The Chancellor, in dealing with this matter, said:
The best solution in the long term was to do, first, what I understand is being done at present, cut out the less productive sections of the industry"—
to which one of my hon. Friends said, "There will be none left". The Chancellor went on:
and, in the longer term, to help in every way we can to encourage new industries to come to the area to absorb those for whom this industry cannot any longer provide employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 1456.]
That was the very callous attitude of the Government to the problems of this industry. It was, I should have thought, completely out of harmony with the indication—I will not say pledge—given by the then Financial Secretary a year earlier. The Government clearly have been running out on their pledge.
I thought that I heard an hon. Member opposite ask why we did not raise the matter last year. We sought to do so. We had a new Clause very high up on the Notice Paper, but, for reasons which lay entirely within the discretion of one of your predecessors, Mr. Arbuthnot, it was not selected, and there was nothing more we could do about it. We also sought to raise the matter on Report, but again, unfortunately, we were not able to do so. We make no complaint about it, but that is why two years have passed before we have been able to return to this problem. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that many of my hon. Friends during the passage of the Local Employment Act raised the problem of employment within this industry.
7.45 p.m.
I have referred to the pledge given by the Treasury Bench three years ago. I have referred to the very clear breach of that pledge, so far as it went, by the Chancellor two years ago. There is another hon. Member to whom I should like to draw attention, namely, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power and, therefore, in a very key position to influence the welfare of this industry and to do something about it. Together with his right hon. Friend the Minister, he is the spokesman in the House for this industry, and he should be doing something about it. Let me remind the Committee of what the hon. Member for Pollok said on 2nd July, 1957:
I confess that I am not able to answer the argument put forward by the Financial Secretary regarding the impossibility of separating the products of the shale oil industry from other oil products. I can quite appreciate that that is a tremendous difficulty, but, though I may be putting it too high, I felt that in not ruling out some other method of assisting the industry, my hon. Friend had gone a very long way to giving us hope"—
There the hon. Member for Pollok was accepting that hope had been given to the industry by the then Financial Secretary's pledge. Unfortunately, this hope was punctured a little by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) saying:
Could the hon. Member say what the other methods are?


To this the hon. Member for Pollok, now a junior Minister with responsibility for this industry, said,
I would not press that issue at this stage. I am quite happy to feel that the Government are thinking along other lines to assist"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 2nd July, 1957; Vol. 572, c. 1000.]
Three years ago an hon. Member who got himself re-elected with pledges similar to those we have heard from other hon. Members opposite and who now finds himself on the Government Front Bench as a junior Minister at the Ministry of Power asked the House to stay its hand in voting on the proposed new Clause then moved by the then Member for Midlothian, the late Mr. David Pryde, on the ground that a pledge of assistance had been given. Three years later still nothing has been done, and that is why my hon. Friends press this proposed new Clause.
We shall be interested to know from the new Economic Secretary—because Treasury Ministers come and go—whether he intends to announce that the Chancellor is to honour the pledge so clearly given three years ago and either accept our proposal and give fiscal relief to the industry or that he proposes to introduce some other measures to help not merely the area but the industry itself. We hope that the Economic Secretary will make it clear where the Government stand.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not refer either to the televising of these proceedings, or to dividend stripping, but stick to the difficulties of the shale oil industry of Scotland.
As the Committee will be aware, identical new Clauses to this one were moved in 1956, 1957, and 1958. Hon. Members who have been Members of the House for a few years will be very familiar with the real difficulties of the industry. I recognise that this is a very important matter. There are also some new Members, particularly the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill), who is speaking on this subject for the first time. It is right, therefore, that I should answer the criticisms which have been made at some length.
I recognise that there is great force in what the right hon. Member for

Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said about this being not only an economic and financial problem but also a very difficult human problem with important social aspects.
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that this is a very small industry, but I can assure them that we have not been deterred from attempting to find a solution to this problem merely because it is a small industry. I think that anyone considering this matter fairly must consider it in the light of what has happened in the past. As was said by an hon. Member, this industry is operated by one firm which is a wholly owned subsidiary of British Petroleum. The industry has been "on the go" for more than 100 years. Production reached its peak in 1913, when the industry employed about 10,000 workers. By 1925, the labour force had dropped to 7,000.
The industry was then helped by two factors—first, in 1928, the imposition of Customs duty on imported light oils, and, secondly, in 1935, the extension of that duty to diesel oil used in road vehicles. The blunt fact is that these measures were not enough to do more than merely slow down the decline which had been apparent in the industry for some years. Further contraction was necessary and employment dropped to about 4,000 shortly after the last war. Then in 1955–56, certain mines were closed and the labour force dropped to 3,000. The number of people employed now is only about 2,500 compared with 10,000 which the industry employed at its peak.
We have to recognise that this is not a new or sudden phenomenon; it is something that has been going on for a number of years. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) described it as a ruthless contraction, but this, I would add, is a contraction which, if we face the facts, has been inevitable. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) said that the industry was languishing because of the burden of taxation. Surely the truth is that the industry is languishing not because of that, but because it simply is not competitive.
The hon. Member for West Lothian said that if the industry were to contract further, the Treasury would be the loser.


As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire recognised—and I agree that this is only a small point—if the industry were to contract further oil would come from elsewhere and would, of course, pay double the rate of duty being paid by oil which is not imported.
In fact, the assistance to this industry has been considerable. The hon. Member for West Lothian said that it should not be called a subsidy. I do not mind what we call it, but the industry, over a number of years, has been getting preferential treatment.

Mr. Willis: So have a number of other industries.

Mr. Barber: I am referring to this industry because it is right that we should consider help given to it in the past.
Since the Customs duty on hydrocarbon oil was imposed in 1928—the first for a good many years—this industry was given preferential treatment because it was left free from the duty until 1950. The Committee will remember that in 1950 when the Excise duty was imposed it was lower than the prevailing Customs duty.
The extent of this assistance which applies to light oils and to derv as well was 9d. a gallon in 1938 and it remained at that level until 1953. Since then the preference has been 1s. 3d. a gallon. I think that the Committee should know that the preference over those years involved a total of over £20 million to the Scottish shale oil industry, so it cannot be said in truth that assistance has not been given to this industry.
I recognise that the economic arguments in a matter of this kind are not always conclusive. Whatever may be the social considerations involved, and I repeat that I am under no illusion that this is an intensely human problem, the fact is that one has to consider these economic arguments.
I would again like to draw the Committee's attention to one or two facts. The amount of diesel oil and light oil which are the industry's main products obtained from shale in 1959 was about 10 million gallons, a little more than one-third of 1 per cent. of the total quantity of derv and light oil used in the United Kingdom, or equivalent to less than one-ninth of 1 per cent. of the total quantity

of all hydrocarbon oils used in the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members have talked about the future of this industry. But the total proved reserves, estimated three years ago to be sufficient to last twenty-five years at the rate that they were being exploited, would yield little more than one month's consumption of light oil and diesel oil used by vehicles on the roads in the United Kingdom. This is very relevant when one is considering whether or not one should give some fiscal advantage to an industry, which is what is being asked for.
I will explain to the Committee why I must ask it not to accept this new Clause. There are three reasons. First, there is the cost. Secondly, there is—a minor point I agree—the question of administration, and, thirdly, an important point connected with the European Free Trade Association. As to cost, the existing duty preference of 1s. 3d. a gallon was worth in 1959, as one hon. Gentleman said, about £650,000, or about £10 a ton of the shale oil which was produced. That £10 a ton preference is worth comparing with the average landed cost of crude petrol in the United Kingdom in 1959 which was £8 a ton.
Despite this assistance, which amounted—and this is a very important fact—to over £5 a week for each person employed in the Scottish shale industry and equivalent to a protective duty of more than 100 per cent the industry has operated for several years at a heavy loss. There is, in fact, little or no prospect of improvement because the industry is uneconomic.
As already pointed out, shale oil is only one source of indigenous oil in Britain, and, quantitatively, it is only a minor one. Oil from shale is only 10 per cent. of the country's total production of indigenous oil. The protection afforded to the Scottish shale oil industry in the past has always applied equally to all our other indigenous oil producing industries. While it is true to say, as the hon. Member for Midlothian said, that the cost of the concession for which he is asking would be only £650,000, if this relief were to be given to this section of the industry there is little doubt that others, or, at least, some of them, would press for equal treatment. If that was granted the cost would be anything up to £7½ million a year.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East criticised the Government Front Bench because he said that he expected a United Kingdom Minister to reply to this debate. The reason why I am replying and not my hon. Friend is simply that this is a Revenue matter, with implications which go far beyond Scotland and, therefore, it must be considered over all as a Treasury matter. I assure the Committee that I have been in touch with the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade before I came here to reply to this debate.

Mr. H. Wilson: What did they say?

Mr. Willis: Are we to take it that the Scottish Office agreed that this industry must die?

Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I have to say he can draw his own conclusions, but he can certainly conclude that the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland agree with the point of view which I am putting forward.
The hon. Member for West Lothian said that previous Treasury spokemen had said that there were practical difficulties about the proposals contained in this new Clause. It is true that there are practical difficulties because it would be rather difficult to discriminate between the various indigenous oils produced in Britain. As hon. Members from Scotland will know, they are all refined in the same plant. I do not suggest that these practical difficulties are insuperable. There is, however, one objection to the Clause which is insuperable. Even if the other objections to which I have referred could be overcome, the Government's decision to adhere to the European Free Trade Association raises an insurmountable difficulty.
8.0 p.m.
At present, the dutiable products derived from Scottish shale oils, like those derived from the other indigenous oils, enjoy a preference of 1s. 3d. per gallon over imported oils and, therefore, over oils of E.F.T.A. origin. The proposal to exclude from the Excise duty oils which are derived from Scottish shale would increase this preference to 2s. 6d. This would be a direct breach of Article 6 of the Convention, which prohibits increasing the protection of a domestic

product against E.F.T.A. supplies over that existing on 1st January this year.
I hope that in view of what I have said, and especially in view of this last aspect, the Committee will agree—

Mr. Woodburn: I am not clear what part of the Seven produces oil which competes with this type of oil.

Mr. Barber: The difficulty arises because in the Convention shale oil is treated as what is called a basic material. Consequently, dutiable oils produced in E.F.T.A. countries from crude shale oil of any origin would be included. Quite apart from that, however, this would be contrary to the Convention.

Mr. H. Wilson: Who negotiated the Convention? Did not Her Majesty's Ministers have any say in the classification? Were they not aware of the effect that the Convention would have on this problem? Did they not study these debates in the past? When putting the E.F.T.A. proposal to the House, did they mention that they had either overlooked this point or, worse still, had taken the point and done nothing about it? The hon. Gentleman talks as though E.F.T.A. is an act of God. It is an act of Her Majesty's Ministers, together with six of our friends in Europe. It was the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers, because nothing was involved affecting the interests of the other countries, to protect the interests of this industry when they negotiated.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. He was himself, I thought, concerned to some extent in the debates on the European Free Trade Association. The situation is clearly set out in the Convention.

Mr. Wilson: It is not clearly set out.

Mr. Barber: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like me to read it. In Article 6, paragraph 6, there is a definition of revenue duties, which are defined as meaning
customs duties and other similar charges applied primarily for the purpose of raising revenue".
Obviously, therefore, it includes this duty.
Paragraph 2 of the same Article states that:
Member States shall not introduce new fiscal charges which are inconsistent with


paragraph 1 of this Article and shall not vary an existing fiscal charge in such a way as to increase, above the level in force on the date by reference to which the basic duty is determined"—
that is, the beginning of this year—
in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 3, any effective protective element in the fiscal charge…
It is clear that this does not apply only to shale oil. It applies to any revenue duty which has a protective element. I hope that the Committee will realise that for this reason, quite apart from the others, it would not be possible to accede to the request of the sponsors of the new Clause.
The hon. Member for Midlothian said that there was serious unemployment in his area. From the inquiries I have made, I certainly agree. The hon. Member will know that Bathgate, Broxbourne and the two Calders are scheduled as development districts under the Local Employment Act. One hon. Member mentioned that the British Motor Corporation is to build a factory at Bath-gate which will employ a considerable number of people. I hope that this will go some way to help the area, because I believe that it is in this sort of way, rather than by an artificial fiscal advantage, which, even if it were possible, would not be consistent with our obligations, that we must try to help the area.

Mr. Woodburn: I raised the point that while it might be possible to do this by fiscal methods, being practically the owners of British Petroleum and having other methods by which to assist, the Government could use other methods also. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) pointed out that in the previous debate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) hinted that that would be possible. Would it not be possible for the Government to use some other method to help the industry tick over, even if they cannot use the fiscal one?

Mr. Barber: On reading what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, I certainly did not think he had indicated what the right hon. Member has deduced from his speech. I will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said and draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Obviously, I could not at this stage commit British Petroleum, which runs as a commercial project, to any particular course of action.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would not have sought to detain the Committee further on this matter tonight, but the speech which we have just heard from the Economic Secretary cannot be allowed to pass without a reply. It is the worst of all the answers we have had in successive debates on the problems of this industry. Even if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had replied, he could not have done it worse.
We had it from the hon. Gentleman that the industry is only a small one, that we can knock it on the head and it does not matter. That was the whole burden of his figures. Secondly, he told us that the Government are giving the industry wonderful help and are not treating it as badly as others. His argument was that the tax on this industry is smaller than the remainder of the oil tax. If it were any bigger, of course, it would kill the industry altogether. The hon. Gentleman said that as the Government have not cut off its head but are only slowly strangling it to death they must be regarded as being kind to it.
The hon. Gentleman did not produce a single argument for not helping the industry. He did not compare it with the help which has been given to steel and which is now proposed for Cunard or all the other industries that come along with their begging bowls. The reason is that it is a small industry and has no political influence. It obviously contributes nothing to the fighting funds of the party opposite because otherwise we should have had a crowded Chamber and something would have been done about it long before this. The hon. Gentleman tried to rest his case on the thinnest argument I have heard from Treasury Ministers in four or five years of listening to Finance Bill debates. When I remind the House that that includes the period when the Prime Minister himself was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it can be realised how thin some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments were.
The Economic Secretary said that the E.F.T.A. precludes us from helping the industry. He said it was clear when the E.F.T.A. proposals were presented to the


House that shale oil would be harmed. It was not perfectly clear. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to point to one remark or statement by any of the Ministers who commended those proposals to the House and carried the Bill through which suggested that the Government were precluded from all time from giving any fiscal help whatever to the industry.
If that was the Government's interpretation of the E.F.T.A. it was their duty to give the House an honest statement about it when we were asked to approve it.

Mr. Barber: It is not a question of interpretation. It is perfectly apparent to anybody who reads the Convention that it applies to the protective element in any revenue duties. The whole House supported the E.F.T.A. proposal and I assumed that the right hon. Gentleman had read the Convention before he spoke on it. It is not a question of interpretation; it is clearly stated.

Mr. Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so forthcoming. He has walked right into it. He has made confession that in negotiating the E.F.T.A. the Government either sacrificed an important though small industry deliberately and knowingly or did it without even realising what they were doing. Perhaps he will tell us which of these two sins—I find it hard to know which is the greater—the Government have committed. Did they know that they were sacrificing their ability to help this industry or did they simply walk into it in the negotiations without realising it?
It is plain that no vital E.F.T.A. interest is involved in shale oil. It is not as though we were negotiating about Danish butter, Swedish woodpulp or some of the problems which already are causing trouble for certain Scottish industries. We did not get anything for it in return. Its being written into the Convention satisfied none of our trading partners. Why did not the Government say that they had a problem with the shale oil industry and might want to alter taxation and that they did not wish to bind themselves about their policy towards shale oil? Not one of our trading partners would have objected.
Instead we had the Government coming back with the agreement. In general, we

accepted the principle. We were not committed to every detail, because we had not negotiated it. In the first place, £5 million duty was knocked off port and sherry by the E.F.T.A. Convention and, secondly, it absolutely tied our hands and prevented us from giving any help to the shale oil industry when a matter of £200,000 or so would probably have solved the problem.
We used to hear about our negotiation of the G.A.T.T., but that was nothing like this. The hon. Gentleman, like myself, is a Yorkshireman, but he has not behaved like one on this occasion. In the Yorkshire phrase, when he sat down to negotiate they saw him coming.
The hon. Gentleman has not referred at all to the pledge which was clearly given by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He said that he had read that pledge, but did not see anything in it. However, his hon. Friends did three years ago and said that that was the reason why they were not voting. If it did not mean fiscal help—and I read the pledge as not being fiscal help for the reason the hon. Gentleman gave—there must have been some other help and I think that what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had in mind was the use of the voting shares, or some other form of persuasion of B.P., to see that this industry would not go under.
It is no good talking about competition. What does the word "competition" mean in the oil world? The oil industry is honeycombed with monopolies and trust agreements. The Government do not know what the word "competition" means in relation to oil. Let hon. Members ask anyone who wants to bring Russian oil into this country when they will find that the Government say "No" even though the price is competitive.
Once again the Government have betrayed their pledges as they did two years ago. What amazes me is that, having had two more years to think out an excuse for doing nothing, the hon. Gentleman should have put up such a thin case as he gave us this evening.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 176, Noes 240.

Division No. 107.
AYES
[6.33 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick


Ainsley, William
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, Norman


Albu, Austen
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hilton, A. V.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, Stan
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holt, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Beaney, Alan
Howell, Charles A.
Randall, Harry


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hoy, James H
Rankin, John


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood(Brist'l, S. E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, William


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, William
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robinson, Kenneth (Sir Pancras, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowles, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Boyden, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jeger, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Callaghan, James
Jones, T W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chetwynd, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. Horace
Steele, Thomas


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, John
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stonehouse, John


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stones, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Darling, George
Logan, David
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingier, Stephen


Deer, George
McCann, John
Sylvester, George


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, James
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Diamond, John
Mackie, John
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, Norman
Mahon, Simon
Thornton, Ernest


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Manuel, A. C.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Marsh, Richard
Timmons, John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mason, Roy
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Albert
Mendelson, J. J.
Warbey, William


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Dingle
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, Walter
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mort, D. L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Gooch, E. G.
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Grimond, J.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Gunter, Ray
Pargiter, G. A.



Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pavitt, Laurence
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.


Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Hart, Miss Judith






NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Beamish, Col. Tufton
Boyle, Sir Edward


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Braine, Bernard


Allason, James
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Brewis, John


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald(Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Brooman-White, R.


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bidgood, John C.
Bryan, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Bullard, Denys


Balniel, Lord
Bingham, R. M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Barber, Anthony
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Bishop, F. P.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Barter, John
Bossom, Clive
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Batsford, Brian
Box, Donald
Cary, Sir Robert


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)







Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hollingworth, John
Peyton, John


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Hopkins, Alan
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth[...]n


Collard, Richard
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooke, Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pott, Percivall


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K,
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cordle, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Costain, A. P.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Coulson, J. M.
Hurt, Sir Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, James


Craddock, Sir George Beresford
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cunningham, Knox
Jackson, John
Rees-Davies, W R.


Curran, Charles
James, David
Renton, David


Currie, G. B. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Dance, James
Jennings, J. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roots, William


de Ferranti, Basil
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Sir Keith
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Russell, Ronald


Drayson, G. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott-Hopkins, James


du Cann, Edward
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sharples, Richard


Duthie, Sir William
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kimball, Marcus
Shepherd, William


Eden, John
Kirk, Peter
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Elliott, R. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Emery, Peter
Leavey, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, Gilmour
Speir, Rupert


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Maj. Sir Harry
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J,
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Fell, Anthony
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col Sir Malcolm


Finlay, Graeme
Litchfield, Capt. Hon.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Forrest, George
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Talbot, John E.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Teeling, William


Freeth, Denzil
McAdden, Stephen
Temple, John M.


Gammans, Lady
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gardner, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Glover, Sir Douglas
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gower, Raymond
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Maddan, Martin
Turner, Colin


Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vane, W. M. F.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Morgan, William
Wall, Patrick


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nabarro, Gerald
Watts, dames


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholls, Harmar
Webster, David


Hay, John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Noble, Michael
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Nugent, Sir Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hendry, Forbes
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wise, A. R.


Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Woodhouse, CM.


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page A. J. (Harrow, West)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Worsley, Marcus


Hinohingbrooke, Viscount
Partridge, E.



Hirst, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hobson, John
Peel, John
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian
Mr. Whitelaw.

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[8.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pavitt, Laurence


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Awbery, Stan
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Holt, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.


Beaney, Alan
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Howell, Charles A.
Randall, Harry


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brit'I. S. E.)
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, William


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Boyden, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Skeffington, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Sorensen, R. W.


Chapman, Donald
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chetwynd, George
King, Dr. Horace
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stones, William


Deer, George
Logan, David
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephen


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Sylvester, George


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mackie, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mahon, Simon
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Timmons, John


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, A. C.
Wade, Donald


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Erie
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Warbey, William


Foot, Dingle
Marsh, Richard
Watkins, Tudor


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Gooch, E. G.
Monslow, Waiter
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Greenwood, Anthony
Morris, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grey, Charles
Mort, D. L.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grimond, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Woof, Robert


Gunter, Ray
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.



Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Mr. Cronin and Mr. Probert.


Hannan, William
Pargiter, G. A.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Black, Sir Cyril
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Aitken, W. T.
Bossom, Clive
Cole, Norman


Allason, James
Box, Donald
Collard, Richard


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat(Tiv'tn)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooke, Robert


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Braine, Bernard
Cooper, A. E.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Balniel, Lord
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Corfield, F. V.


Barber, Anthony
Brooman-White, R.
Costain, A. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Barter, John
Bryan, Paul
Craddock, Sir George Beresford


Batsford, Brian
Bullard, Denys
Critchley, Julian


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Bell, Ronald (S. Buoks.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Cunningham, Knox


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Curran, Charles


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Currie, G. B. H.


Bidgood, John C.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Dance, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bingham, R. M.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Deedes, W. F.


Bishop, F. P.
Clark. William (Nottingham, S.)
de Ferranti, Basil

New Clause.—(BLIND PERSONS.)

The following section shall be added to Part VIII of the Income Tax Act, 1952:—
228A. If a claimant proves that during the whole of the year of assessment he has been a blind person on the register of blind persons maintained by the appropriate local authority under sub-paragraph (g) of subsection (4) of section twenty-nine of the National Assistance Act, 1948, he shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable equal to tax at the standard rate on one hundred pounds".—[Mr. Cronin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Cronin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): It would be convenient to discuss with this new Clause the proposed new Clauses in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton—One hundred per cent. disabled—that in the name of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—Relief for disabled persons—that in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton—Relief for blind man with guide dog—that in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers)—Relief for blind persons—and that in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird)—


Relief in respect of cost of upkeep of guide dog for blind person.

Mr. Cronin: That would be convenient, Mr. Arbuthnot. It is rather unfortunate that one has the task of moving this Clause. It is a somewhat grievous task because it is something which has been done year after year without any success. The same circumstance applies to the group of Clauses which we are discussing with the one I am now moving. Year after year we have moved such Clauses, or, if they have not been called, they have been put on the Order Paper, but in every case the Government have invariably declined to take action and have made no concessions. It is generally accepted in all civilised communities that blind persons are an object of compassion, but they themselves are most independent and I do not think they would like that argument to be used in their favour. I shall not refer to it other than as I have done already. There are, however, certain very sound fiscal reasons for the Government accepting this new Clause.
It is a fundamental principle of our system of taxation that, in assessing a person's tax, due attention should be paid to his taxable capacity—in other words, what he has available after the necessities of life have been dealt with. Blind persons have to meet a constant and heavy levy of extra expenses in order to pass their normal daily lives. There are numerous necessary actions which they to pay to have done for them. For example, if shopping involves crossing a very heavily trafficked thoroughfare, a blind person must pay somebody to do it for him. If he has to clean his living quarters or his house, again he must pay someone else. Blind persons cannot do their own washing. Numerous services which most of us take for granted have to be paid for by blind persons.
They also have to have special equipment, which is expensive. If they want to read they must have braille books and magazines, which are very expensive productions. Thus, if one looks at the ordinary daily life of a blind person one sees that there is a very heavy levy of constant expenditure which seriously impairs his taxable capacity. A blind person has additional expenses when

travelling to work. Quite often it is impracticable for him to travel by public transport. He must, therefore, have special transport to take him to and from work.
For these reasons, it is particularly desirable that blind persons should receive some consideration in fiscal legislation additional to what is normally obtainable. This new Clause has certain considerable advantages. It makes concessions to an easily definable group of people, those on the blind persons register. It also has the blessing of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. One feels that there are very sound fiscal and economic reasons for accepting the Clause. I say this without prejudice against the other new Clause in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), which affects post-war credits for blind persons, and is equally agreeable to our side of the Committee.
I turn now to the question of guide dogs for blind persons. Their purpose is to enable blind men to go to and from work and also to travel for the purpose of recreation. These dogs enable them to have a sense of independence. They can go out and about much more than would otherwise be the case, and they can also dispense with the services of people to guide and help them. It enables blind people to take exercise and to lead healthy lives. It makes them less liable to be a tax on the community, in having to take advantage of the services of the National Health Service. Having a guide dog also has a tremendous psychological effect on a blind man. He can get about, and his independence makes a tremendous difference to his welfare and morale.
8.30 p.m.
The only difficulty is that these guide dogs are rather large; they are usually labradors, collies or alsatians, and they usually eat between one and two pounds of meat a day. I can understand that a man with a family can support such a dog if he spends 15s. a week on meat for it and if he is able to supplement its diet with scraps from the family table, but a spinster or bachelor has to spend about £1 a week on feeding it. These people get some help from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which means that that association has less funds available to pay for the training of further dogs.


At present, about 10,000 people in unsheltered employment are blind, and of that number about 1,000 have guide dogs. If the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association did not have to subsidise the feeding of these dogs it could train many more, which would be available for blind persons.
The Clause also has a distinct advantage in that it provides hon. Members with an opportunity—which occurs only on a few occasions when we are taking part in the rather dry proceedings on the Finance Bill—to do something for animals. It is a well-known tradition of the House that anything concerning the welfare of animals tends to engross its attention, and this seems to be a very suitable occasion for hon. Members to show their appreciation of the useful services rendered by domestic animals.
I understand that hon. Members opposite tend to think of animals chiefly in terms of objects to be hunted or destroyed rather than as objects of value and use.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It would be dangerous to proceed further along that tack.

Mr. Cronin: I bow to your Ruling, Sir William. I shall not refer again to the pursuit of the uneatable by the unspeakable. I must give Oscar Wilde his quotation.
Everything that I have said about blind people applies a fortiori to 100 per cent. disabled persons generally. They, too, have heavy additional expenses, which affect their taxable capacity, but which are necessary to enable them to live any kind of reasonable life. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are aware that paralysed, crippled and mutilated persons have to have special appliances to be able to eat and look after themselves. They often have to have special clothing.
A special apparatus is available in the shops which enables a crippled person to hoist himself in and out of his bath, which he would not otherwise be able to do. This apparatus costs £55, and it is one more indication of the heavy expense involved in being a disabled person. Hon. Members know that disabled persons very often have to spend

10s. or £1 a day in travelling to work in London. No allowance is available in respect of this heavy additional expense.
Our present fiscal legislation provides some relief, but in a curiously isolated circumstance. If a person is infirm, or disabled, he obtains some relief if he has a resident daughter to look after him, but not if he has only a resident son or a resident nurse. The relief applies only if there is a resident daughter. This is a most peculiar fiscal anomaly. Here is an opportunity for the Government to take action to correct it.
If disabled persons received some additional consideration in regard to income they would have a much bigger incentive to work, so the economic effect of the new Clause would be of great value to the economic apparatus of the country. This afternoon the Chancellor told us quite a lot about the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, and spoke with great respect and reverence of the Reports issued by this body. I hope that the Financial Secretary will bear in mind what the Commission says in its summary of recommendations on page 70 of its Second Report. It says, quite succinctly and uncompromisingly:
Grave incapacity (comparable to the 100 per cent disability recognised in the administration of war pensions) should give rise to a claim for a tax allowance, which should be at least £100.
That is precisely what is embodied in one of the new Clauses proposed by hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and also, to more limited extent, in the new Clause which I have moved.
I hope that on this occasion we shall have a more forthcoming answer from the Financial Secretary than we have received on other occasions. This is a matter which commands the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, first, on economic grounds and, secondly, on principles of justice and fiscal equity. Most important of all—in saying this I do not wish to add any emotional appeal—I think that those who would gain from the provisions of this new Clause are people whom we are particularly bound to assist, and if we do so we can be certain of the full approbation of our constituents.

Miss Joan Vickers: I wish to support the Motion. I have a similar new Clause—Relief for blind persons—which is No. 42 on the Notice Paper. I understand that my new Clause No. 43—Post-war Credits for blind persons—has not been seleced.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will remember that last year I was one of a deputation which interviewed the previous Financial Secretary in conjunction with the Royal National Institution for the Blind and the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind and representatives of blind professional persons. The late Mr. Edward Evans, to whom I think this Committee owes a great deal, was also a member of the deputation. We were fortunate in persuading the then Financial Secretary to put forward the idea that blind persons should receive the post-war credits due to them and for that we should like to express thanks today. But I feel that this is something we should wish to press now and in the future.
The deputation to which I have referred was told that there was great difficulty in distinguishing between different types of disabled persons. At that time we were pressing the Government on behalf of those registered with local authorities. Reference has been made to the expenses incurred by blind people. These include expenses for guide dogs, equipment, laundry and for cooking, which are different from the expenses of other disabled people. I am a member of a committee in my constituency where flats are provided for blind people in which they are able to do their own cooking and laundry. That is something which in many cases it is not possible for blind people to do.
In Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Finland blind persons are given State pensions. There is no means test and the pensions are free from Income Tax reductions. My hon. Friend will agree that the need of blind persons is recognised in this country because there is a supplementary scale for the blind. They are the recipients of National Assistance under what is quaintly named the constant attendance allowance. A blind person with 100 per cent. disability resulting from either a war or an industrial injury can receive this constant attendance allowance, which means that the

Government have recognised the need for an individual blind person to be provided with some extra income to meet extra cost. We cannot say, therefore, that the actual principle has not been recognised by the Government; it is only a question of persuading them to carry the matter a little further.
It is difficult to understand why the Government allow those who cannot work to receive extra allowances but will not allow any tax concession to those blind persons who are self-supporting. Blind persons who are entirely self-supporting do not get any tax concessions and they are not receiving anything from public funds, whereas those who are receiving something from public funds get extra help. So far as I have been able to ascertain, this category of blind persons in the United Kingdom is the only substantial group of blind taxpayers in the whole world who have to meet extra costs from their taxable income.
As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) mentioned, the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income gave support to my case. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will see in paragraphs 201 to 203 of its Report that it recommended a special allowance of £100 for gravely disabled taxpayers and cited the blind as those who were particularly disabled. The definition of those who could qualify was those with
personal circumstances which are reasonably capable of identification…
I think that blindness is certainly capable of identification
and which demonstrably set the person concerned apart from others.
In this case we can say that blind persons are demonstrably set apart from all others. Their disability is a more disabling one than any other type of disablement. They have to provide for themselves many extra services, including guide dogs and equipment, and they have to pay a number of extra gratuities. When a blind person is helped he has to put his hand in his pocket, probably more frequently than a sighted person because he has his pride and does not like to take something without giving something in return.
In the past Great Britain has given a great lead in blind welfare, but not in the question of taxation of the blind. I


shall give examples from other countries of how their blind are helped. In Canada, under tae Income Tax Act, 1945, blind persons are given extra income and the tax relief of 480 dollars per annum. If they have to have a full-time attendant they can deduct taxation if that attendant's salary exceeds 480 dollars. A single man is relieved of tax on an income of 1,140 dollars and a married man is relieved of tax if his income is 1,680 dollars. Blind married couples are separately assessed and entitled to individual deductions. Australia passed an Act in 1952 by which every blind person of 16 and over has a tax-free pension of £4 7s. 6d. a week and married couples have a tax-free pension of £8 15s. This is intended to meet extra cost of living.
New Zealand, through its Social Security Act, 1939, provides for registered blind persons a tax-free pension of £4 12s. 6d. a week with no means test at all. In Malaya and Ceylon the earnings of qualified blind persons—I admit there are not a great number in either country—are free from taxation. If an individual goes to a workshop in Malaya he gets 25 Malayan dollars, paid monthly, either for being taken to work or to meet extra expenses incurred in going to work. In the United States of America an extra tax-free allowance of over 600 dollars is given in addition to other personal allowances. If a person is over 65 he gets a further allowance of 600 dollars. In 1947 the German Federal Republic gave a 200 marks tax-free concession on earned income and a 120 marks tax-free concession on unearned income. In Switzerland taxation is free on 900 francs and in many of the African Colonies huts are given to blind persons, or they do not have to pay tax on their huts.
We in this country are lagging behind in concessions given to blind persons. As the hon. Member for Loughborough said, it is very important to recognise the part played in our economy by blind persons who work. They have no need to do so, for they could live on their pensions and National Assistance without doing any work. They undergo a very severe training. They equip themselves for a job and those who do so, do it extremely well. In view of the heavy expense to which they are put it should

be possible for the Financial Secretary to give a favourable reply to the new Clause.

8.45 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: This group of new Clauses which, Sir William, you have kindly permitted us to discuss with that which my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has moved, all deal with human problems—the problems of the halt and the maimed and the blind.
At the beginning of my short speech I remind the Committee that these problems have been eloquently presented to successive Chancellors of the Exchequer by, among others, a very distinguished former back bencher, Sir Frederick Messer, and by another distinguished back bencher, the late Edward Evans, who gave his life in many ways to the disabled. I am very happy that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers), whose work for all kinds of people in distress commands the admiration of both sides of the Committee, has taken part in the debate.
Possibly no country has done as much as this country for the relief of disabled people, except fiscally. Possibly the only Department of Government which has not taken part in the tremendous advance in social reforms for the disabled is Her Majesty's Treasury, and we hope that as a result of this debate we shall break through this evening and that the Treasury will make some of the concessions for which we are asking.
None of the concessions for which we ask involves large sums of money. All of the new Clauses which we are discussing could be granted by the Chancellor without upsetting his great economic policy of checking inflation. Behind them all is a principle—the principle that disability is not only a physical hardship and a spiritual hardship, but also a financial hardship in view of the fact that the disabled person has to spend more to live.
I want to address myself not to the question of the blind—that has been admirably covered—but to the question of the 100 per cent. disabled, which is the subject of the Clause entitled "One hundred per cent. disabled". The term "One hundred per cent. disability" is an abstract term which in itself has very


little meaning when we are discussing it. I looked up the categories of people who are 100 per cent. disabled. Many of them I have had the honour to meet year after year at the annual conference of B.L.E.S.M.A., the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association.
To be 100 per cent. disabled from the point of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance one must have lost both hands, or a hand and a foot, or two legs, or a leg and the other foot. Or one must be almost blind—blind enough not to be able to do a job. Or one must have a very severe facial disfigurement, or be totally deaf, or paraplegic.
These are the categories of 100 per cent. disability recognised by the Ministry for war pensions and for industrial injuries, and the bulk of the men and women for whom we are seeking tax concessions for 100 per cent. disability would be in those two categories. They would be men gravely damaged because they risked their lives for their country or men and women who have been severely damaged while carrying out their work in industry.
When we have presented this case in previous years the Treasury has always argued, "We can identify those two classes, but it would be very difficult to say what we meant by 100 per cent. disability for a man who was not a war pensioner, or an industrial injuries pensioner." He would be someone whose disability was the result of an organic disease."
I refuse to believe that it is beyond the skill, not so much of the Treasury but of the great medical profession, to categorise 100 per cent. disability in so far as it is the result of organic disease. I see no difficulty at all, if the Treasury is of a mind to accept the principle of this new Clause, in doing what the Treasury must always do—be quite clear in its mind exactly what it is conceding and exactly what people are to get the benefit because they are regarded as being 100 per cent. disabled.
The bulk of them are already covered under war pensions, or industrial injuries provisions, and the rest are groups suffering from an organic defect on which I am quite certain the medical profession could satisfy the Treasury that it could give a clear and precise meaning to 100 per cent. disability.

Mr. Cronin: The apparatus is already available in the medical boards of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. There would be no difficulty.

Dr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We gave the medical boards exactly that task when we asked them to assess 100 per cent. disability for war pensions and industrial injuries. The apparatus is there, and, given the job, I am quite certain that they could do it.
This is not merely an emotional case, although emotion is not a bad thing and an appeal for humaneness is not an unimportant appeal. Emotion is wrong only if it is wrongly applied. Then it becomes sentimentality, and there is no sentimentality in the emotion aroused by the kind of cases we are discussing. The case that Sir Frederick Messer always used to put was the simple, economic case, the simple case of equity for the disabled man, as compared with his fully able fellow taxpayer. The case was the simple one—and the hon. Lady has just made it for the blind—that the disabled man finds it more expensive to live than an able man. Very often, he has to pay for what the able-bodied man can do for himself.
I found it most moving at the B.L.E.S.M.A. conference this year when one of the delegates who spoke was an armless man who was entirely dependent on fellow human beings for practically everything that he will ever do in his life. Many of the simple services that we can provide quite naturally for ourselves the disabled person has to obtain from affectionate friends or in the last resort has to pay for. There is the special kind of clothing which he has to have. Sometimes, he cannot make use of ordinary forms of transport. Where some people can take a bus, the disabled person has to take a taxi. All these things add up in the life of a disabled person and add to his expenses, which are as legitimate as any expenses which any of us set down in our Income Tax returns and have offset when paying our Income Tax.
What we seek in this group of new Clauses is that the Treasury, for the first time, should recognise that there is an economic cost in disability. The Royal Commission accepts this point of view. I know that on major policy there is obviously reason for the Government


to make their own decisions about some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, but anyone who reads the Royal Commission's Report on detailed matters such as these must agree that sooner or later it is the duty of the Government to accept its recommendations. The Royal Commission made its recommendation in practically the same terms as the new Clause, and asked that the tax concession should be for f100 of the income received by a 100 per cent. disabled person.
I sincerely hope that we shall break through this year for the first time at the end of a debate which is one of a series of debates reaching back into the past almost ever since the Royal Commission was set up. I hope that in one of the various ways suggested in the new Clauses the Chancellor will concede some of what we ask for.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish to add my support to the new Clauses. I fully support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) on the new Clause—Relief for blind persons.
I feel that now is the time to go even further than that. I therefore hope that we shall receive at any rate a reasonable and sympathetic answer from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. In the past, the arguments against doing anything in relation to Income Tax reliefs have been put from a variety of angles, but today we have the Financial Secretary in a position in which it will perhaps be a little more difficult for him to reject some of the new Clauses.
It is true, as has been argued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, that this is a standstill Budget, but it has already been broken down in relation to small reliefs. Therefore, my hon. Friend cannot argue that case tonight.
Another argument put forward in the past has been the difficulty of establishing who are totally disabled. We have now reached the point of being able to deal with that. In any event, it would be very regrettable if the British House of Commons, which has been capable of doing many things over the decades, found itself in a position to turn down

new Clauses of this kind on the ground that they are almost impossible to implement.
As was rightly pointed out by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we are now reinforced by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. I have noticed with great interest that when it suits my right hon. Friend he accepts the Royal Commission and when it does not suit him he rejects the Royal Commission. I am a very practical and, I hope, logical person. I do not like that approach. One has certain responsibilities to the people of this country.
I am sorry to have to say that to some extent the Treasury is concerned with the amount of pressure. It does not apply just to my own Government. It applies to all Governments. Unfortunately, on these matters the pressure is not as great as it is on other matters. Therefore, in the past my right hon. Friend has been in a position to refuse.
I do not like that. The House of Commons is supposed to safeguard the interests of minorities. We very often forget that. We do not safeguard the interests of minorities, because I do not believe that the minority case gets through to my right hon. Friend at the right times. Therefore, on such an occasion as this, when it is perfectly obvious that the whole temper of all those hon. Members interested in these cases has been to make a very strong appeal to the Financial Secretary to make some concessions, I hope that those concessions will be made.
9.0 p.m.
I know, Sir William, that I would not be in order if I referred to what has happened in regard to other parts of Finance Acts, but I believe that if, sometimes, some of us who, year after year, make our case on this sort of occasion, could be consulted a little beforehand as to what would be acceptable we might not find ourselves faced with the unfortunate position of people who can really quite well afford to look after themselves being benefited. Here, of course, I refer to rich widows, who have had a very nice Income Tax relief—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady is straying from her ways, and I cannot but feel that she knows that she is doing so.

Dame Irene Ward: Of course, you are quite right, Sir William. I know that you have a very penetrating mind and a very good psychological approach. If you and I could go out together you would know exactly what was in my mind. You have interpreted rightly. I have no intention, Sir William, of embarrassing either you or myself by straying now on the forbidden path.
I have been in the House of Commons for a very long time, and the longer I am here the more difficult I find it to make the pace for the kind of people to whom we are referring tonight in the discussion of their problems. Though I have the greatest possible faith in the memories of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I think that it would be a great pity if, by some misfortune, they forgot the past and looked only at this case as it is now being presented.
As has been said, one of the anomalies is that if a blind person has a resident daughter there is a relief, but if there is a resident family there is not a relief. My complaint against the Chancellor and 'the Financial Secretary has all the time, been that they will not face anomalies. They make no attempt at all. Occasionally, they give a few small crumbs, or do some kind little action with the best inten,tion—I must not mention what they do, 'but they do it. When, however, it comes to looking at a problem like this in its, entirety we are left with no answer, because they are never able in any Finance Bill to say, "Here is the problem of the blind and the 100 per cent. disabled. We have given it full attention."
After all, with any luck, Finance Bills come only once a year, so the Treasury has twelve months in which to study the words of wisdom that have fallen from the lips of various hon. Members since, say, 1945. By now, the Treasury ought to have made up its mind what ought to be done that is just, what ought to be done that is fair and equitable, and what, ought to be done to wipe out the anomalies. It is just these small anomalies, that create so much dissatisfaction and heartburning. I want to emphasise to the Chancellor that the anomalies affect not only the individual concerned but, the whole family, the whole street in which the family live, the whole community, and local authority treatment.
If Parliament cannot give a lead in these matters, what is the use of our being here? I do not want to give the Chancellor a lead in the economic planning of his Budget; I am satisfied with that in general, but I am not satisfied with the way in which these matters are dealt with. I do not want to wait another year. We are to have inquiries and pledges of some sort. I want to know that when we come to the Report stage something will be done to meet this case.
Perhaps I would be in order in mentioning one matter, because I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport who mentioned it in connection with National Assistance and people who earn their own living. I should have thought it was to the benefit of the economy of this country to try to help those who help themselves. I see a great deal of what goes on in social life, and I know that there is a very strong feeling throughout the country that the one weakness is that we do not help people who are prepared to help themselves. If a person is really poor and down and out and does not feel that he wants to make the effort, there is an enormous friendly machine which will help that person. That is incredibly wrong. We should help those who help themselves, and that is what the country wants from this Government.
I hope that we shall not be put off by the difficulties. As to the point about not being able to distinguish between the 100 per cent. disabled and the blind, I heard all those arguments when we were discussing the repayment of post-war credits. No one could have been firmer than previous Chancellors of the Exchequer in maintaining that it was impossible to make the distinction. Now it has proved possible. I do not believe that we are up against an insoluble problem. I think we can easily do this.
At any rate, I trust that we shall get some satisfaction from the Financial Secretary. I am delighted to know that he now has support from others on the Front Bench, and I hope that he will be able to make us happy by being forthcoming in his reply.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: I wish to speak on a subject which is very dear to me and has been for the last twenty years. I refer to the handicapped


and blinded person, of whose difficulties I have to made some experience.
When blind people have work provided for them they are beset by great difficulties. Very often they have to be guided to work. If they want to go out for a walk they have to be guided. They have to be assisted in many ways. They have to be helped even to put on their collar and tie, and it is important particularly for a young blind person to have his hair parted correctly to enable him to feel part and parcel of the community in which he lives.
Nevertheless, such persons develop a very independent attitude. It is now possible for blind persons to get another form of help when they require to be guided to work. I refer to guide dogs. The society which provides guide dogs for blind persons has done a magnificent job. I believe—no doubt, I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that it costs about £200 to provide and train a guide dog to assist a blind person. The voluntary organisations have appealed on innumerable occasions for tax relief for the blind man who has a guide dog to take him to work. I beg the Chancellor to take note of the appeals which have been made on account of the quite invaluable work which is done.
To illustrate what a guide dog can do, I will tell the Committee of a man who is a blind teacher in the North of England. The area he has to cover is a very large one, and he is one of six people employed to look after 826 blind persons. He is able to go about with his guide dog. He is taken to a street by friendly neighbours and, after going once to a particular house with his guide dog with him, he can always be brought back again to that house by his guide dog. Once he has been to any place, his guide dog can take him back there again. The dog will guide him through heavy traffic; it will not allow him to cross the street if it senses that there is any danger likely at all.
I think it would, perhaps, be good if the Chancellor himself were to be blindfolded and then tried to find his way to his own room in this building or to the Westminster Underground Station. I suspect that it would be almost impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to do so unaided, and I am sure that he would very greatly appre

ciate whatever help and guidance other people gave him in finding his way about.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that he cannot make any concession because he has not the money. He may say that if he makes a concession in this case other organisations will ask for similar concessions and he is not in a position to differentiate. I believe that that was one of the arguments he used last year. In this connection, I should like to remind the Committee of something said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in the debate on 5th April this year. The hon. Gentleman made this very significant statement:
I have always been sceptical, and so have many of my hon. Friends, of the value of initial and investment allowances. They are of very dubious benefit…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 309.]
If those allowances are of very dubious benefit, there is here an opportunity for industrialists to forgo them so that the Chancellor will be able to give tax relief to the blind man with a guide dog.
I come now to the position of the 100 per cent. disabled person. I have for long been a member of a war disabled pensions committee and of disabled persons advisory committees and I have visited many disabled people in their homes. They have to have home helps, and for this service they have to pay. They have to have additional clothing. For instance, if a disabled person has lost both legs, he has to have special clothing. If a wheel chair is provided by one of the organisations, the wear and tear upon the disabled person's clothing is something which is quite beyond the experience of any hon. Member here with his clothing. There are additional gadgets which a disabled person must have if he has lost both hands.
9.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) referred to the conference of a certain organisation which he attended. I have a local interest in these persons and know exactly their difficulties. They have to have special appliances. A single man or woman residing by himself faces great difficulty. If they are able to use their hands in a way which can be of benefit


to themselves and to the community, I feel that tax relief should be afforded to them.
I could quote many other cases. I have heard in our debates on the Bill appeals for concessions of various kinds. I feel—and here I address my remarks directly to the Chancellor—that here is a chance for this Committee, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to rise above itself and to do something for the blind man who has to have a guide dog and for people who are 100 per cent. disabled.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I rise to fulfil a promise that I made some months ago to a very attractive, in many respects, constituent of mine. I feel somewhat embarrassed that the case cannot be put by one of the hon. Ladies present.
I was struck by a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) to the effect that many people have no idea of what is meant by a 100 per cent. disability. I realise that my hon. Friend knows what it means, and, coming as I do from a mining constituency, I can assure him that I know full well what a 100 per cent. disability is. In the mining areas, in particular, there are people with the serious disability of paraplegia. However, I do not want to deal with general cases, because they have already been well covered.
It is significant that not one voice has yet been raised against these proposals. I hope that the Financial Secretary will pay due regard to what has been said. I certainly hope that he has not made up his mind before hearing the arguments. I want to confine my remarks to the category of persons who come under Clause 10. People in this category, although they are not in receipt of a 100 per cent. disability pension or industrial injury benefit, are, nevertheless, disabled 100 per cent. I shall confine my remarks to this category, because we have heard so much in support of other categories.
I want to quote a letter which I received not yesterday, or last month, but on 14th December, 1959. It is from a polio victim. It is self-explanatory, and it reads:
I wear, on an average, six undergarments out per year due to buckles, steel, crutches, etc.

due to the fact that I have to wear double calipers, back support and crutches which come up to my elbows as a result of having had polio as a child. I have worked since I left school at 18 and am now 48…
This young lady—I still call her young even though she is 48—has worked since she was 18, and this is a tribute to her indomitable courage. She goes on:
"…and have, over the years, paid my fair share of tax, which I know we all have to pay, but I do feel very, very strongly indeed that I have to pay as a normal person when I have to pay out as much for clothes as a dire necessity rather than for glamour. An amputee is allowed six woollen stump socks per year by the Ministry. We with calipers are allowed nothing.
I have discovered over the years that woollen pants are the best thing to stop chafing at the top of my legs. These garments alone cost me a small fortune out of my wages. Also there are the top clothes. Coats and macs wear at the sleeves, and as I go to work every day I am constantly having to replace these items. I also have to wear woollen stockings which this winter have been a nightmare to find as they are not fashionable. In the end, I had to order a box of half a dozen. These are the kind of problems one faces which the general public have no idea of at all"—
as my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen pointed out—
but one I do expect the experts any Government might put in charge of these problems to more than understand. I do not know who decides on who should have what, but whoever they are they want to think again and have representatives from all disabled—war. industrial and act of God—to be fair to all.
If this person could claim for those clothes as being in the category of a uniform or industrial clothes she could claim exemption. The position is absolutely farcical.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen pointed out, the question of assessing 100 per cent. disability creates some difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) pointed out a precedent for that. I could also give a precedent, quoted in this letter:
The Board of Trade had a very good scheme during the war when they gave extra coupons to all disabled persons. They started off with forty as a maximum for people like myself and then went down in scale.
If the Board of Trade could accept that principle, why in heaven's name cannot the Chancellor accept it now? There are hundreds of people like this who go to work every day and they should have some consideration when it comes to tax relief.
I ask the Financial Secretary to think very seriously about this matter. I am thinking not only of polio victims, but of many of my personal friends who have been the victims of industrial disease and who are, in consequence, paraplegics. I see them practically every month. In view of the fact that hon. Ladies opposite, who have given a lifetime of experience to this problem, as well as every hon. Member on this side of the Committee, have supported the Clause, the Government should give credence to what has been said.

Mr. John McKay: The Chancellor, when he is considering the question of Government concessions, should have regard to the worst-placed people in the country who have to go to work to earn their living and who deserve a concession beyond all others. These three new Clauses dealing with the question of a £100 allowance are based upon the position that these people are handicapped far beyond the rest of the workers in the country. Has the Chancellor considered this from the point of view of these people? There is an Act on the Statute Book which applies particularly to blind people.
The blind man is handicapped to a far greater extent than any other class of person. Therefore, if any concessions have to be made, they should be made to the blind. When the present and past Chancellors of the Exchequer have considered to whom help by means of tax reliefs should be given, had they examined the matter thoroughly they would have been bound to come to the conclusion that the blind man should have a concession. He is fighting an exceptional battle.
The blind man who would derive any concession from the Clause must, of necessity, be working and earning an income. For many years, since the introduction of National Assistance, there has been special recognition of the position of the blind. When a man is blind but has every other faculty, the Government have recognised that he is handicapped in many ways beyond the rest of his fellow citizens and he is given a bigger National Assistance allowance because of his special position. He requires extra expense and attention. The Government admit this and give

him additional National Assistance, whether he is married or single.
If it is necessary to help the blind man to a greater extent than anyone else on National Assistance, it is logical to help him even further. When, despite his great disability, a blind man acquires skill and can earn an income, his special position should be recognised. That is the general opinion throughout the country. In refusing to do anything for the blind man who takes his place in the labour market, the Chancellor is going against the whole of public opinion.
The fact that those who are disabled by war or other causes are given additional help is a recognition of the principle that a man who is handicapped does not have the same opportunities to earn the same income as other people. This fact should be recognised by the Exchequer in granting him an allowance additional to the allowances enjoyed by normal people.
9.30 p.m.
It is also suggested that people who have been out of work for twelve consecutive months, because of mental or physical infirmity, should also be given a taxation concession. It is proposed that the concession should be similar to that given to people who reach 65 years of age. Two or three years ago, a concession was granted whereby merely because a man reached 65 he was exempted from paying tax on £440 of his income.

Mr. Houghton: Age exemption is on income up to £275 for a single person and £440 for a married person.

Mr. McKay: That is quite right. However, that concession is given merely because the taxpayer reaches 65 and it is now suggested that someone who has been off work for twelve consecutive months, and who has therefore had that special handicap, should have an identical concession.
There is no question about the public's opinion of the need for a special concession for the blind. Indeed, it is up to the Chancellor to prove that public opinion is not behind us. He will find it very difficult to do so. The blind have a greater handicap than anyone else and if a blind person goes into the labour market and does something for himself and for his country he should be given


every encouragement, and that encouragement can be given if he is allowed a special concession.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is remarkable that each year we debate a new Clause of this character, that both sides of the Committee show complete unanimity about the proposal, that not a single voice is ever raised against it, and yet, somehow, year after year the Chancellor of the Exchequer is allowed to get away with defying the wishes of the Committee. It is time that we began to examine ourselves. We become cants and humbugs if we make speeches in our constituencies and in this Committee without any opposition and then, when the final result comes about, we find ourselves just where we were when we started.
I say frankly that whilst it may not be possible to obtain these concessions on this occasion—because I can well imagine that the Financial Secretary has not the authority to make a decision of this kind—I hope that full weight and consideration will be given to the remarks that have been made today. There can be no question but that this Committee is supposed to represent the ordinary mass of the people; there can be no question that if this were decided on a constituency basis, or on the basis of individual localities, every member of this Committee would be voting for these improvements, for this small measure of justice for those people who are so badly afflicted in one way or another.
Not one of our constituents would say that it was better to take 2d. off beer or cigarettes than to give a concession to persons who need a guide dog. None of our constituencies would say that it was better to take 2d. of beer and to forget the sick, the maimed and the crippled, as we do year after year. Why, then, in the name of fortune, if the Committee has expressed its view with unanimity year after year, without a dissident voice being raised, do we not make up our minds to see that the Executive do what we want them to do?
I want to tell the Financial Secretary of a case with which I am conversant because I have known the man concerned for many years. His parents died when he was a young boy. He is a complete cripple, paralysed from the waist down

wards, his hands and arms gnarled and twisted. One would have thought it impossible for him to do anything useful or make any contribution to society. He was taken into a wonderful home where all the love and affection was shown him that it was possible for any child in such circumstances to have showered upon him.
He learned shorthand, and became a teacher of it. He set up a school—and remember that this man has to be washed every morning just as though he were a baby. He must be carried out of the house and put in a car. The car takes him to school and there he sits in his chair from the time of his arrival until it is time to go back into the car which takes him home. When he gets home a male nurse, whom he pays, comes in to wash him and put him to bed. For all that expenditure he does not get a single penny relief.
Let us imagine that he could turn his teaching work into a company. He would employ a chauffeur, and the chauffeur's wages would be a charge against the firm. But the man I have described cannot charge for the cost of the car to take him to the only place where he can make an independent contribution to our society. He cannot charge for the cost of the male nurse who comes in to attend him each morning and evening.
What kind of Government or Treasury is it that says that, although a business man shall be able to charge all kinds of expenses against his income, the man to whom I have referred and others like him shall get no relief? There is an impregnable case for the acceptance of these new Clauses, and although in past years no relief has been given, I hope that when the Financial Secretary ends his speech in reply to this debate we shall have a higher opinion of him than we had before because he will have made it clear that he and the Treasury will have more regard for these suffering people in future than they have had for them up to now.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not intend to enter into the merits of the issue that we are considering, because I am not competent to do so in as fine a manner as that in which other hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have done so. I have great respect for those


hon. Members who can speak from firsthand experience of dealing with people who are afflicted and physically disabled.
I rise to plead with the Financial Secretary. I want to assure him that I do not intend any reflection upon him as an individual. My hon. Friends and I have too much respect for him, arising out of the record of service which he has already rendered, to make any personal reflections upon him. It was mainly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) which stimulated me to rise. He said that the time had arrived for hon. Members to assert themselves, as a Committee considering the Finance Bill. I happen to be in a strong position to do that.
It is easy to talk, but the test is the part we play when we support the Government of the day. Those of us who have supported the Government on this kind of occasion are in a strong position to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow is asking us to do. Sooner or later we must assert ourselves in this national assembly in dealing with issues of this kind. These are everyday issues, vitally affecting our people, and unless we can deal with the daily grievances of the people in the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have suggested tonight, it is only a matter of time before more discredit is brought upon our procedures.
One of the Government Whips is sitting beside the Financial Secretary, and I appeal to him to ask the Chancellor to enter the Chamber so that he can be made aware of the complete unanimity of opinion that exists among hon. Members on both sides as to the desirability of concessions being made at this stage.

9.45 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I have heard nine speeches on these Clauses—all admirable and very thoughful—and I am genuinely sorry that I cannot invite the Committee to approve them, for reasons which I will explain. In view of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I thought it only fair that I should declare myself clearly at the start.
Having said that, I should like to say one thing which will be quite uncontroversial. I was glad that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) paid personal tributes to former members of this House with which I should like to associate myself: first, Sir Frederick Messer, whose triumph over his own disability we all admired and respected; and, secondly, the late Mr. Edward Evans, who did fine work for the blind and also for the deaf, as I know personally from my association with the Ministry of Education. I do not know any hon. Member who gave himself more unsparingly, and at a much later age than many of us realised, to causes of that kind.
I do not quarrel with what has been suggested by a number of hon. Members that the consideration shown to the most unfortunate in our society is surely one good test of a civilised community. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), who spoke feelingly, as he always does in this type of debate, put his finger on the question when he made the interesting point that so many Government Departments have made great contributions in the social field and the only Department which has not is the Treasury. That takes us to the heart of the matter.
In one sense I think it fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his predecessors have contributed greatly by budgetary means to the social services of the country. Tonight, we are not debating them directly, but I believe that, on the whole, our social services compare well with the social services of most Western countries. It is perfectly true to say that successive Chancellors have taken the view that the right way to deal with the categories of disabled persons which we are discussing is by direct help through the social services rather than by what would be an entirely new kind of fiscal relief.
While I fully understand the strong feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend has considered this matter carefully again this year. But I must say frankly that he still feels that he must adhere to the view he took last year.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the Treasury can give any estimate of what it would cost if these concessions were made?

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. Let me say straight to the Committee that the reason I invite hon. Members not to accept these Clauses is not because of their cost. The point is that my right hon. Friend does not believe that fiscal reliefs are the right way to deal with the question for reasons which I will try to explain, dealing, first, with the blind and then going on to the disabled.
I think that it is accepted that in the case of the blind this would be an entirely new kind of fiscal relief. The debate has shown that there are a number of classes of disabled whose problems are very much the same as those of the blind. I think that it would be extremely difficult to have any special tax relief for the blind and not immediately go on to consider the spastics, those suffering from poliomyelitis, people with multiple sclerosis and another category referred to by a number of hon. Members, the paraplegics. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) referred to them in an admirable speech.
I disagree with a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who said that those people who do not have a very strong lobby to speak for them do not do very well in these debates. I think it worth remembering that we do not exert much Parliamentary pressure regarding handicapped children, yet the standard of the special schools for them in this country is much higher today than it was a generation ago. I do not believe that it would be possible to have a new kind of fiscal relief for the blind and not soon extend it to certain other similar classes of persons. It is worth remembering that it would be very difficult indeed to have an allowance specially for guide dogs and not to have an allowance which would help blind people who have to have others to take them to their places of work, or who need transport.

Mr. R. T. Paget: It has always seemed odd to me that the shepherd's dog is excused, but that the blind man's dog is not excused. Is that because

the farmer's lobby is stronger than the blind man's lobby? There does not seem to be any logical reason.

Sir E. Boyle: I really do not think that it is for that reason. The hon. and learned Member is on a fair point, but if we once conceded the point about the blind man's dog, however much any of us in this Committee would like to do so, we would find that the consequential results on the whole system of taxation would be very much more difficult than many people think.

Mr. Paget: That does not answer the point.

Sir E. Boyle: Let me finish this point.
We have to remember, first, that many blind people are not today liable to tax and, secondly—a point which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport mentioned—National Assistance scales are substantially higher today for blind people than for normally-sighted people. When one partner of a married couple is blind, the new scale, which is higher as the result of increases in National Assistance made last year, is over £1 more than that for a normal couple.
I come to the proposal for a 100 per cent. disability allowance, and I say again that the opinion of my right hon. Friend, which is the same as it was last year, is that this is not the best way of giving help where it is most needed. It would open a door which would be ever widened not just in terms of cost, on which I do not wish to lay primary emphasis, but in terms of the whole equity of our tax administration. I believe it impossible for our system of Income Tax to take account sufficiently closely of the personal circumstances and disabilities of very large numbers of individual disabled taxpayers. In the first place, a disability allowance would not help those who pay no Income Tax at all.

Mr. McKay: Is it not true that the point about those who do not pay tax and get no concession does apply to other taxation?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, but it is also important to remember the part it plays when considering the most unfortunate of taxpayers. I say this to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), to


whose speech I listened carefully, that it is highly relevant to those unfortunate people to consider whether they pay tax. I believe that direct assistance is the better method.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: rose—

Sir E. Boyle: May I be allowed to go on, as I have given way a number of times.
It is true that disabled persons incur expense, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aberdare. He gave a good example in a letter which impressed us all, but we have to remember two things. The first is that this expenditure would vary very much between one person and another. Secondly, and this is the important point, this extra expense might as easily occur in the case of someone who was 75 per cent. disabled as in the case of someone 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. disabled. Very often it is those with disability below 100 per cent. who go to work and possibly have the greatest extra expense as a result of disability.
Secondly, the administrative difficulties of going beyond the 100 per cent. disability would be very considerable. Any further step beyond those with 100 per cent. disability would raise very awkward assumptions and equivalences, causing very complicated medical investigations. I put seriously to the Committee that to stop at 100 per cent. and take account of the expenses those people have to meet, and not those who are under 100 per cent. disabled but somewhere between 75 per cent. and 100 per cent., would cause more injustice than today.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the Report of the Royal Commission. There is one point on which I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth; I can see nothing illogical about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor quoting the Royal Commission's Report when he agrees with it, in support of his argument, but not quoting it when he disagrees with it. It would be much more illogical if he quoted the Royal Commission's arguments when he disagreed with them.
It is important to remember that while the Royal Commission recommended a 100 per cent. disablement allowance, it did so with two very important provisos—first, that this allowance should not be in addition to or parallel with any tax-free disablement benefit; and, secondly, that if this 100 per cent. disablement allowance were given, other current allowances should be withdrawn. I think that the net result of implementing the Royal Commission's proposals would not be an advantage either to the war disabled or to those who receive industrial injuries benefit.
The Government's view is that fiscal proposals are not the best way to help the disabled. The best way is by direct help which takes account of each individual's disability and his particular circumstances and needs.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Member says that the right way is to help by direct assistance. Can he give an assurance, before we vote, that the Government propose to give increased direct assistance to these people?

Sir E. Boyle: I will give some examples of the assistance which is being given. My right hon. Friend will certainly consult his colleagues in the social service Ministries and consider sympathetically whether there are detailed instances in which these examples ought to be increased. We have not closed our minds on these matters. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is often a matter of administrative action and inter-Departmental consultation rather than of Clauses to be brought to the Committee.

Dame Irene Ward: Why does my hon. Friend think that the Royal Commission made those proposals if they were detrimental?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not believe that the Royal Commission intended those proposals to be detrimental, but if hon. Members look at the proposals they will see that it is quite arguable to maintain, as I maintain, that the effect of implementing the proposals as put forward by the Royal Commission would not be of very great assistance either to the war disabled or to those in receipt of industrial injury benefit.
I should like to give the Committee a few examples of the direct help which


is given. Last year my right hon. Friend rightly quoted examples of invalid tricycles or artificial limbs provided by the National Health Service. The Ministry of Labour provides rehabilitation and vocational training, and there are tax-free pensions with supplements for members of the Armed Forces and persons disabled in industry.
It is on those grounds that I invite the Committee not to accept the new Clauses. I fully realise that this is a matter on which the emotions of the Committee are rightly aroused on all sides. I will pass to my right hon. Friend the views which have been expressed this evening but, having listened to them carefully—and I listened to all the speeches made in the debate—I still feel that we are right to say that the correct way of helping these disabled people is by direct action through the social services rather than by introducing a completely new fiscal device which would lead administratively to an ever-widening door and which I do not believe would be of the greatest efficacy for our purpose.

Mr. Probert: I mentioned the case of a lady who has devoted thirty years of her working life to introducing Welsh to the community. As a poliomyelitis case, how can she have assistance towards meeting the cost of six sets of undergarments which she needs every year because of her disability?

10.0 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: When I have read it in HANSARD, I will take up that point with my appropriate colleague to see whether anything can be done to meet that case. One thing the hon. Gentleman did not mention, which is of some importance. is that I rather find myself doubting whether this would be a case of 100 per cent. disability, but I agree that that is a detail point. I will look at the case which the hon. Member has put.

Mr. Houghton: First, I wish to thank the Financial Secretary for his kindly reference to the part which two of our former colleagues played in the debates in the Committee on this matter in the past. We have missed Sir Frederick Messer this evening, and especially have we regretted the death of Edward Evans. who contributed very much, not only in the House but outside, to the welfare of the disabled and handicapped people.
I should also like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) to our debates on these matters. His speech showed a full understanding and great experience of this problem. I wish to refer also to the very moving speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert).
Having said that, I must express two disappointments. The first is the lack of support that we have had from the benches opposite, and the second is the nature of the Financial Secretary's reply. It has been a striking contrast with the appearance of the benches opposite in the earlier part of this debate, and it is interesting to remember the Schedule A lobby a few hours ago. As soon as that debate was over, the Tory cohorts departed, the dragoons and the buffoons went, and even hon. Gentlemen who said that the abolition of Schedule A went right to the heart of Tory philosophy have not remained to tell us how near to the heart of Tory philosophy is some assistance to the blind and the 100 per cent. disabled in our fiscal system.
I must notice with regret that the only two speeches we have had from the benches opposite were from the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and we expect from both of them sympathetic and forceful speeches on these matters. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth asked a very pertinent question. She said. "How is it that we in this House cannot impose the will of the House of Commons upon the Executive? "The answer is that it can be done if we try hard enough, and I am bound to say that it can be accomplished within the next half hour if hon. Members opposite would go into the Lobby with us on these new Clauses. Then the will of the House would prevail.
The truth of the matter is that the pressure upon the Government on these matters is nothing like as strong as the pressure on the Government for concessions in other and less worthy directions. We must acknowledge that. We on these benches cannot impose our will on the Government because we have not a majority in the Committee to do so, but we will ally ourselves with any movement on the benches opposite to achieve the


purpose which I am sure we have jointly in mind.
The real issue here is not cost. It usually is cost and on some of the new Clauses which will come later I have no doubt that we shall hear a great deal more about cost. The cost to the Exchequer of the concession sought in these new Clauses would be comparatively small, and in one or two cases would, in fact, be negligible, but I wish to point out that this group of new Clauses offers the Chancellor a selection. The main new Clause deals with the 100 per cent. disabled, and if the Chancellor were able to accept that, we would gladly withdraw other subsidiary and secondary new Clauses dealing with parts of the same main problem.
The Financial Secretary based his argument on whether this is the best way to give help to disabled persons. We must remember in this connection that we are dealing with taxation and not with social services. It is well to remember that in paragraph 201 of its second Report the Royal Commission said:
The taxpayer's own disability is hardly recognised under the existing system. Yet there are many kinds of disability (putting aside age, which is provided for by a special relief) so severe that they modify the whole conditions of a person's life and impose upon him a constant levy of extra expense that may fairly be said to affect the taxable capacity of his income".
That is what we are dealing with in the new Clauses—the 'taxable capacity of the income of a severely disabled person.
In the first sentence of paragraph 202 the Royal Commission said:
Our general conclusion is that grave disability ought to be the subject of allowance".
That is what we are endeavouring to persuade the Government to accept. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said, we have been trying for a number of years. We have moved these new Clauses in different forms for at least the last six years, but the response from the Government Front Bench has been much the same.
The Financial Secretary said that tax reliefs are not the best way of dealing with the problem. My reply to that is that tax reliefs are not the only way and may not be the best way, but they are a way of dealing with the problems of disabled people. We are dealing with

them in relation to the additional expense to which they are put and which, as the Royal Commission suggested, should be given some special concession.
I know it can be argued that the social services and not the tax code should take care of the casualties of life—the sick, the disabled, widows, and so on. But tax reliefs are already given for purposes not far removed from those covered by the new Clauses. Tax reliefs are given to the parents of young children, because the presence of young children in the home affects the taxable capacity of the taxpayer.
Tax reliefs, as well as tax-free educational grants, are given in respect of children undergoing extended education. The fact that educational grants may be made in respect of children undergoing extended education does not disqualify the parent from receiving not only the full child relief but the highest child relief in the code of personal allowances for that purpose.
Therefore, it is irrelevant for the Financial Secretary to refer to grants and allowances which are already made under the social services and paid tax-free to certain types of disabled persons. Comparable allowances are paid in the educational field without any damage to the tax reliefs of the parent. Tax reliefs are given, in addition to widows' benefits, to widows who employ a housekeeper for their young children. The Chancellor in this very Bill has introduced a new relief for widows and widowers with young children who did not qualify for the housekeeper's allowance because they did not have a housekeeper.
Tax reliefs as well as retirement pensions are given to old people. There is an age exemption and age relief, given on grounds of age alone and irrespective of any degree of disablement. Tax reliefs are given to those who maintain dependent relatives, and those reliefs are carefully safeguarded from erosion by the rise in social payments made under the National Insurance scheme or by the National Assistance Board.
I am trying to prove to the Committee that in our tax code we already give reliefs to taxpayers for those aspects of personal and domestic life that make a difference to the taxable capacity of the individual, and our contention is that


severe disablement, as the Royal Commission itself said, does affect the taxable capacity of the individual. Therefore, who is to say where the line should be drawn? We can only draw upon the wisdom of the Commission, the most recent monetary review of these matters, which was favourable to the principle of the proposal. That is where it comes from.
On this occasion, as on many others, I rely heavily upon the wisdom of the Commission. It was able to see the personal allowances as a whole. It examined carefully and critically the whole code of personal reliefs, and acknowledged that there were some administrative problems about its proposals that might have to be approached with caution.
The Financial Secretary said a moment or two ago, "Of course, if we give relief for 100 per cent. disablement, what about the 90 per cent., the 80 per cent., the 50 per cent. disabled?" I shall not rule out the possible extension of a relief of this kind, but the Royal Commission dealt with that aspect and suggested that we should try it out for the 100 per cent. cases and see how it worked.
I know that it is possible that a 100 per cent. disabled person may in some respects be less handicapped than one with a smaller assessment, but I think that the Committee will agree that those who are 100 per cent. disabled have grave disablement, probably, generally speaking, more severe than that of persons with a smaller disablement assessment.
An admitted problem of administration has been referred to a number of times. It is the problem of certification, which the Royal Commission examined carefully. The criterion for the payment of post-war credits, referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth, is a 100 per cent. disablement certified by the Ministry concerned. In the case of those who are covered by the assessment of a Ministry there would be no difficulty in administration, but there would be difficulty about those who were disabled to an equivalent extent to those who received a 100 per cent. disablement grant or allowances from a Government Department. The problem of certification would certainly arise there, but the

machinery for that could be discussed between the Treasury and the Ministries concerned, and the medical profession.
We are very sorry that the Financial Secretary has been unable to make some advance. We cannot accept the viewpoint of his right hon. Friend, although he was merely confirming today a point of view that we have had in years gone by. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would at least concede that some further review of personal allowances generally should be undertaken, and that this might form part of such a review. We have heard in earlier debates of some of the anomalies and difficulties with regard to the housekeeper and allied reliefs, and the Financial Secretary earlier agreed that some more comprehensive review of the personal allowances would probably be worth while. I am sorry that he has not gone even as far as that.
We are bound to carry our discontent into the Division Lobby. We have done it before; we shall do it again. We know of no substantial argument against an extension of personal allowances into this sphere of grave disablement. We have the Royal Commission behind us. We have the weight of argument behind us. We have heard nothing from the benches opposite against this, except the Minister with his Inland Revenue brief in his hand and the speeches of his right hon. Friend and his predecessors on previous occasions. Is there any hon. Gentleman who will rise to his feet when I sit down and state a case against the new Clause which is before the Committee?
It looks as if on the question of disabled persons hon. Members opposite are prepared to allow the case to go by default, but that on the abolition of Schedule A tax they will give the Chancellor no peace night or day until he has made some concession. That shows where the priorities of the Tory Party lie. We have nothing but contempt for them. We shall go into the Division Lobby, and I invite those who want to get nearer to the heart of Tory philosophy than the abolition of Schedule A tax to come with us.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 174, Noes 240.

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[8.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pavitt, Laurence


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Awbery, Stan
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Holt, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.


Beaney, Alan
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Howell, Charles A.
Randall, Harry


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brit'I. S. E.)
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, William


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Boyden, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Skeffington, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Sorensen, R. W.


Chapman, Donald
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chetwynd, George
King, Dr. Horace
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stones, William


Deer, George
Logan, David
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephen


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Sylvester, George


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mackie, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mahon, Simon
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Timmons, John


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, A. C.
Wade, Donald


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Erie
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Warbey, William


Foot, Dingle
Marsh, Richard
Watkins, Tudor


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Gooch, E. G.
Monslow, Waiter
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Greenwood, Anthony
Morris, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grey, Charles
Mort, D. L.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grimond, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Woof, Robert


Gunter, Ray
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.



Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Mr. Cronin and Mr. Probert.


Hannan, William
Pargiter, G. A.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Black, Sir Cyril
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Aitken, W. T.
Bossom, Clive
Cole, Norman


Allason, James
Box, Donald
Collard, Richard


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat(Tiv'tn)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooke, Robert


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Braine, Bernard
Cooper, A. E.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Balniel, Lord
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Corfield, F. V.


Barber, Anthony
Brooman-White, R.
Costain, A. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Barter, John
Bryan, Paul
Craddock, Sir George Beresford


Batsford, Brian
Bullard, Denys
Critchley, Julian


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Bell, Ronald (S. Buoks.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Cunningham, Knox


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Curran, Charles


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Currie, G. B. H.


Bidgood, John C.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Dance, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bingham, R. M.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Deedes, W. F.


Bishop, F. P.
Clark. William (Nottingham, S.)
de Ferranti, Basil




Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ramsden, James


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jennings, J. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Doughty, Charles
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackiey)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Edward
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Duthie, Sir William
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Eden, John
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Elliott, R. W.
Kershaw, Anthony
Roots, William


Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Eveiyn
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Ronald


Errington, Sir Eric
Leather, E. H. C.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leavey, J. A.
Sharpies, Richard


Farr, John
Leburn, Gilmour
Shaw, M.


Finlay, Graeme
Legge-Bourke, Maj. Sir Harry
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Fisher, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd&amp; Chiswick)


Forrest, George
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fraser, Kn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Speir, Rupert


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Freeth, Denzil
Loveys, Walter H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gammans, Lady
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, Sir Samuel


Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McLaren, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Godber, J. B.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Goodhart, Philip
MacLeod John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Talbot, John E.


Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, William


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Temple, John M.


Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maginnls, John E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harvle Anderson, Miss
Mawby, Ray
Turner, Colin


Hay, John
Morgan, William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Henderson, John (Cathoart)
Neave, Airey
Vane, W. M. F.


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Noble, Michael
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hiley, Joseph
Nugent, Sir Richard
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Wall, Patrick


Hocking, Philip N.
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Holland, Philip
Page, Graham
Watts, James


Hollingworth, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Webster, David


Hopkins, Alan
Partridge, E.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornby, R. P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, William


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Percival, Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Howard Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wise, A. R.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pilkington, Capt, Richard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pitman, I. J.
Woodnutt, Mark


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pott, Percivall
Woollam, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, J. Enoch
Worsley, Marcus


Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Jackson, John
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel

Division No. 109.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Ainsley, William
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Popplewell, Ernest


Albu, Austen
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Prentice, R. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Probert, Arthur


Awbery, Stan
Hayman, F. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Randall, Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Rankin, John


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, A. V.
Redhead, E. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holman, Percy
Reid, William


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)
Holt, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, James H.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Blyton, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, William


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Bowles, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Skeffington, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Small, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Stonehouse, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stones, William


Cronin, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. Horace
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Darling, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Logan, David
Sylvester, George


Deer, George
Loughlin, Charles
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dempsey, James
McCann, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Thornton, Ernest


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Thorpe, Jeremy


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Timmons, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mackie, John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, A. C.
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Evans, Albert
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, Tudor


Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan
Mason, Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Foot, Dingle
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, Walter
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Morris, John
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Goooh, E. G.
Oram, A. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gourlay, Harry
Padley, W. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Pargiter, G. A.



Grimond, J.
Pavitt, Laurence



Gunter, Ray
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Mahon and Mr. Howell.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Box, Donald
Cooper, A. E.


Aitken, W. T.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K.


Allason, James
Braine, Bernard
Cordle, John


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathooat (Tiv'tn)
Brewis, John
Corfield, F. V.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brooman-White, R.
Coulson, J. M.


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Percy (Torrington)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Barber, Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Craddock, Sir George Beresford


Barter, John
Bullard, Denys
Critchley, Julian


Batsford, Brian
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Cunningham, Knox


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks)
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Curran, Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Currie, G. B. H.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Dance, James


Bidgood, John C.
Chichester-Clark, R.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biggs-Davison John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Deedes, W. F.


Bingham, R. M.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
de Ferranti, Basil


Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Black, Sir Cyril
Collard, Richard
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Bossom, Clive
Cooke, Robert
Doughty, Charles







Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


du Cann, Edward
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rees, Hugh


Duncan, Sir James
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliott, R. W.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Renton, David


Emery, Peter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, Julian


Errington, Sir Erie
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Sir peter (Heeley)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kirk, Peter
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Farr, John
Leavey, J. A.
Roots, William


Fell, Anthony
Leburn, Gilmour
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fisher, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Forrest, George
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shepherd, William


Freeth, Denzil
Longden, Gilbert
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Gammans, Lady
Loveys, Walter H.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardner, Edward
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speir, Rupert


Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Stevens, Geoffrey


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McLaren, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Godber, J. B.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gower, Raymond
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.
Talbot, John E.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Teeling, William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Temple, John M.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan, William
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Gerald
Turner, Colin


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Neave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hendry, Forbes
Noble, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hicks Beach, Maj, W.
Nugent, Sir Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


Hiley, Joseph
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)
Wall, Patrick


Hocking, Philip N.
Page, Graham
Watts, James


Holland, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wobster, David


Hollingworth, John
Partridge, E.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hopkins, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, William


Hornby, R. P.
Peel, John
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Percival, Ian
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Peyton, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wise, A. R.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pitman, I. J.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pott, Percivall
Woodnutt, Mark


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, J. Enoch
Woollam, John


Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.
Worsley, Marcus


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred



Jackson, John
Ramsden, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


James, David
Rawlinson, Peter
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Sharples

New Clause.—(ONE HUNDRED PER CENT. DISABLED.)

The following section shall be added to Part VIII of the Income Tax Act, 1952:—
228A. If the claimant proves that during the whole of the year of assessment—
(a) he has been in receipt of a war disablement pension or an industrial injury pension granted by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and determined by reference to one hundred per cent. disablement, or
(b) though not in receipt of a one hundred per cent. disablement pension or industrial

injury pension he nevertheless is disabled in manner and degree equivalent to one hundred per cent. disablement.

he shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable equal to tax at the standard rate on one hundred pounds".—[Mr. Houghton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 167, Noes 234.

Division No. 110.]
AYES
[10.25 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Ainsley, William
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Saltford, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Popplewell, Ernest


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Probert, Arthur


Baxter William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S.E.)
Holman, Percy
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Holt, Arthur
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, William


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E.
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Callaghan, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Small, William


Chapman, Donald
Jeger, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stonehouse, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Stones, William


Darling, George
Lawson, George
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham. N.)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Deer, George
Logan, David
Swain, Thomas


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sylvester, George


Diamond, John
McCann, John
Symonds, J. B.


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McInnes, James
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
Wade, Donald


Evans, Albert
Mapp, Charles
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, Tudor


Fitch, Alan
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Dingle
Mendelson, J. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Monslow, Walter
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gooch, E. G.
Noel-Baker Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Will
Winterbottom, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Grimond, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gunter, Ray

Mr. Mahon and Mr. Howell.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Critchley, Julian


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Allason, James
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cunningham, Knox


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Bullard, Denys
Curran, Charles


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Currie, G. B. H.


Balniel, Lord
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Dance, James


Barber, Anthony
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Barter, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Deedes, W. F.


Batsford, Brian
Chichester-Clark, R.
de Ferranti, Basil


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Doughty, Charles


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Collard, Richard
Drayson, G. B.


Bidgood, John C.
Cooke, Robert
du Cann, Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Duncan, Sir James


Bingham, R. M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Elliott, R. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Cordle, John
Emery, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Corfield, F. V.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bossom, Clive
Costain, A. P.
Errington, Sir Eric


Box, Donald
Coulson, J. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Farr, John


Brewis, John
Craddock, Sir George Beresford
Fell, Anthony

New Clause.—(INCAPACITATED CHILD OVER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS.)

In subsection (1) of section two hundred and twelve of the Income Tax Act, 1952, (which relates to relief for children), after the words "if over the age of sixteen years at the commencement of that year, is receiving full-time instruction at any university, college, school or other educational establishment", there shall be inserted the words "or who, being over the age of sixteen years, but has not attained the age of twenty-one years at the commencement of that year is incapacitated by illness, infirmity or disablement from undergoing full-time instruction at any school or other educational establishment or from following any gainful occupation".—[Mr. Houghton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Here, again, we demonstrate our persistence in these matters, because this proposal was previously debated in 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959. We hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to concede the proposal this time.
It is proposed to give a parent the same tax relief in respect of an incapacitated child as is given in respect of a child over the age of sixteen undergoing full-time education. Once again, the proposal is based on a recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, a proposal made in paragraph 193 of the Commission's Second Report.
When the Royal Commission studied this matter, which it said related to a special situation, the position was that when an incapacitated child reached the age of sixteen, child allowance to the parent was withdrawn and in certain circumstances the parent then fell back on the dependent relative relief in respect of that child. At that time, the drop in the amount of relief to the parent when the child reached the age of sixteen was the tax on £25—the drop was from £85 child allowance to £60 dependent relative allowance.
However, the drop now is very much greater, because the child allowance between the ages of twelve and sixteen has been substantially increased. It was £85, but it is now £125, so that there is a drop from £125 to £75, which is the

new level of dependent relative allowance proposed in the Bill. The child relief for a boy or girl undergoing extended education beyond the age of sixteen is now £150, and it is that relief which we wish to be given in respect of the incapacitated child between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one.
The argument which has been used in the past against this proposal is that in the case of incapacity of this kind the child can obtain National Assistance, subject to the income of the child but irrespective of the income of the parents. It is also said that National Assistance grants are not taxable and that in that sense the social services are taking care of the incapacitated beyond the age of sixteen.
I pointed out in our earlier debate that educational grants for children undergoing extended education beyond the age of sixteen are not taxable, so that it is irrelevant in this connection whether the child receives National Assistance which is not taxable.
It could be argued and has been argued in the past that if this proposal is accepted, there will still be a drop in the relief granted to the parent when the child reaches the age of twenty-one. However, at least it can be said of this proposal that the parent would have the benefit of the higher tax relief during the time the child was between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. There would be a drop at the age of twenty-one, but there are compensating factors in the case of an incapacitated child reaching the age of twenty-one. The first is that the child would then be entitled to a higher National Assistance allowance than at a younger age, and the second point is that probably between the ages of 16 and 21 some efforts to train the child for some useful activity or occupation in life would prove moderately successful.
Therefore, we think that the parent of an incapacitated child between the ages of 16 and 21 should have the benefit of the same tax relief as the parent of a child between the same ages undergoing full-time education.
Another suggestion that has been made is that no parent in these circumstances need hesitate in allowing the child to apply for National Assistance


in its own right. We would suggest that the rôle of the National Assistance Board in these cases should be approached with some caution and that many parents would prefer to receive tax relief rather than that their child should receive National Assistance.
If the Chancellor were to say that he is prepared to give this relief to the parent on condition that National Assistance is not applied for while the higher tax relief was current that would be a matter for consideration. Some parents might prefer, and, indeed, it might be to their advantage, to have tax relief rather than the grant from the National Assistance Board.
There is one final point which is that when the child reaches the age of 21 the parent can make more adequate provision for it if he is in a position to do so and is willing to do so by way of a covenant which, as the Committee knows, would not apply to a child under the age of 21. Any disposition of the parent's income in favour of a minor is chargeable on the parent as part of his income, but at age 21 a covenant could be made in favour of an incapacitated son or daughter which would give the parent some tax relief on account of the undertaking to pay an annual income to the child.
In these circumstances, I hope that the wisdom of the Royal Commission plus the arguments that I have put before the Committee will lead the Financial Secretary to accept the new Clause. Here, again, the question of cost would be negligible. It is a question of whether the Committee believes that tax relief in these circumstances should be given if necessary in addition to social service payments and in extreme cases, perhaps, in substitution for them.

Dr. King: I wish briefly to support the new Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has so ably moved. One of the saddest and yet most inspiring experiences that anyone can have is to meet the parents of an incapacitated child. It seems almost as if nature compensates for its ungenerosity to the defective child by giving it parents who are willing to make sacrifices beyond those made by ordinary parents. I would hope that the Treasury is going

to recognise some of that magnificent parenthood by the way it responds to the new Clause.
We are living at a time when we are doing far more for defective children of every category than ever before in the history of the country. Parents of spastic children, of epileptic children and all the rest come together. Special schools are expanding in every kind of way, but there still remain a number of children who will never go to school at all and who will be a burden on their parents right through their lives. There will be children for whom no special schools are available. There will be children who after they have reached the age of 16 will have to return home from special schools.
What we are asking for in the new Clause is that just as we recognise the fact that the parent who is fortunate enough to have a very bright child which goes on to the university or other institutes of further education after the age of 16 has expenses to meet and give that parent a tax concession because we recognise that a bright child, even if it receives a university grant, is still an expense to the parent, so the parent of a totally incapacitated child should receive a tax concession to help him meet expenses comparable with those borne by the parent of a child who goes on to university.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise this, first because this question has been put to him, and secondly because it gives him an opportunity of honouring the devotion and the care which the parents of such children lavish on them. I hope that he will accept this new Clause.

10.45 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not quarrel with what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the special schools, which were one of my special responsibilities when I was at the Ministry of Education, or with what he said about the parents of incapacitated children. None the less, there are two reasons, which I shall explain briefly, as time is getting on, why I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Clause, and why I believe, as was stated in the last discussion, that provision for incapacity is more suitably dealt with directly under the social services than by way of tax reliefs.
The first consideration has been put in past years, but I put it to the Committee again. Like any other child in the country, the incapacitated child below the age of sixteen is the responsibility of its parents who, of course, qualify for the child allowance in the ordinary way. Once the child reaches the age of sixteen the State steps in, and when the child cannot work the social services provide maintenance grants through the National Assistance Board, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, quite irrespective of the means of its parents, and those grants are given in line with changes in the cost of living.
Through them, the incapacitated child who has no income from capital of its own, like the vast majority in Britain, and no basic income in its own right, receives the ordinary scale of grants in force at present for an incapacitated person with no capital, or income resources of his own. The scale is as follows: At the age of sixteen, it is thirty shillings a week; at eighteen it is thirty-six shillings a week, plus an allowance for its share of the family rent up to a maximum of fifteen shillings; at the age of twenty-one it is forty-six shillings a week, the rate for an incapacitated adult. These are the full grants payable in ordinary circumstances.

Dr. King: That is far less than is allowed in the grants to a student going to university, and still the parent of such a student gets a tax concession for his children.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes. I am pointing out that it seems to me reasonable that grants at sixteen to an incapacitated child—and after all it is only a fairly small proportion of the population, though we hope it will grow, that goes to university—should rightly be the direct responsibility of the State, through the social services.
It seems rather hard to justify giving an allowance of £150 for an incapacitated child between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, while keeping the allowance for all other dependent relatives at the level of £75. If a child allow

ance were to be given at a level of £150 for an incapacitated child under the age of twenty-one, I am sure that there would be a claim that it should continue after that age, because many parents, particularly those whose incomes are derived from earnings at work, would not wish to enter into covenants to pay the child annuity for the necessary period of seven years.
If one type of dependent relative or incapacitated child between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one was given an allowance of £150, I am sure that there would be a demand that a bigger allowance should be given for dependent relatives, whatever the degree of relationship. The case of the incapacitated child cannot really be distinguished from the rest. For instance, the cost of looking after an adult relative suffering from a serious malady, who cannot do anything for himself or herself, can be as heavy as or heavier than the cost of looking after a wholly incapacitated child between the age of 16 and 21.
In discussing an earlier Clause, I was careful to say that I did not base my argument primarily or to any great degree on the question of cost. I am bound to say that if this Clause were accepted there would certainly be pretty rapid pressure for an increase in the dependent relative allowance, which would cost a considerable amount.
Therefore, on consideration of the possible consequentials and for the reasons often explained in the past by former Treasury Ministers, I regret that I must ask the Committee to reject this Clause.

Mr. Houghton: I can put the hon. Gentleman's fears at rest by saying categorically that we should not regard a concession on this new Clause as grounds for claiming an improvement in the dependent relative allowance. That destroys the last vestiges of the case against this Clause. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to support me in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 143, Noes 205.

Division No. 110.]
AYES
[10.25 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Ainsley, William
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Saltford, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Popplewell, Ernest


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Probert, Arthur


Baxter William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S.E.)
Holman, Percy
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Holt, Arthur
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, William


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E.
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Callaghan, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Small, William


Chapman, Donald
Jeger, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stonehouse, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Stones, William


Darling, George
Lawson, George
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham. N.)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Deer, George
Logan, David
Swain, Thomas


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sylvester, George


Diamond, John
McCann, John
Symonds, J. B.


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McInnes, James
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
Wade, Donald


Evans, Albert
Mapp, Charles
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, Tudor


Fitch, Alan
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Dingle
Mendelson, J. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Monslow, Walter
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gooch, E. G.
Noel-Baker Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Will
Winterbottom, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Grimond, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gunter, Ray

Mr. Mahon and Mr. Howell.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Critchley, Julian


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Allason, James
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cunningham, Knox


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Bullard, Denys
Curran, Charles


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Currie, G. B. H.


Balniel, Lord
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Dance, James


Barber, Anthony
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Barter, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Deedes, W. F.


Batsford, Brian
Chichester-Clark, R.
de Ferranti, Basil


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Doughty, Charles


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Collard, Richard
Drayson, G. B.


Bidgood, John C.
Cooke, Robert
du Cann, Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Duncan, Sir James


Bingham, R. M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Elliott, R. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Cordle, John
Emery, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Corfield, F. V.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bossom, Clive
Costain, A. P.
Errington, Sir Eric


Box, Donald
Coulson, J. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Farr, John


Brewis, John
Craddock, Sir George Beresford
Fell, Anthony




Fisher, Nigel
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Renton, David


Forrest, George
Leavey, J. A.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian


Freeth, Denzil
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Gammans, Lady
Lilley, F. J. P.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Roots, William


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Loveys, Walter H.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Sharples, Richard


Godber, J. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Shaw, M.


Gower, Raymond
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Green, Alan
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gresham Cooke, R.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Speir, Rupert


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hail, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maddan, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maginnis, John E.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Summer, Donald (Orpington)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mathew, Gordon (Meriden)
Talbot, John E.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, Ray
Teeling, William


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Maydon, Lt,-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Temple, John M.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hendry, Forbes
Morgan, William
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nabarro, Gerald
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Noble, Michael
Turner, Colin


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nugent, Sir Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hocking, Philip N.
Osborne, John (Hallam)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Holland, Philip
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hollingworth, John
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Hopkins, Alan
Page, Graham
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hornby, R. P.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.
Wall, Patrick


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Watts, James


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Peel, John
Webster, David


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Percival, Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Peyton, John
Whitelaw, William


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, I. J.
Wise, A. R.


Jackson, John
Pott, Percivall
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


James, David
Powell, J. Enoch
Woodhouse, C. M.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodnutt, Mark


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Woollam, John


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, James
Worsley, Marcus


Joseph, Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Peter



Kerby, Capt. Henry
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rees, Hugh
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Finlay.

Division No. 111.]
AYES
[10.52 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Ainsley, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Probert, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Randall, Harry


Awbery, Stan
Herblson, Miss Margaret
Rankin, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, Percy
Redhead, E. C.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Holt, Arthur
Reid, William


Beaney, Alan
Hough ton, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l. S. E.)
Hoy, James H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Skeffington, Arthur


Boyden, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, 8.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cronin John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lawson, George
Stones, William


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Deer, George
Logan, David
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Deer, George Delargy, Hugh
Loughiln, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, Stephen


Diamond, John
McCann, John
Symonds, J. B.


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McInnes, James
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mahon, Simon
Timmons, John


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wade, Donald


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, A. C.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, Tudor


Fletcher, Eric
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Foot, Dingle
Mendelson, J. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Monslow, Walter
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grey, Charles
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pargiter, C. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grimond, J.
Pavitt, Laurence



Gunter, Ray
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Popplewell, Ernest
Mr. Charles Howell and


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Prentice, R. E.
Mr. Sydney Irving.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Freeth, Denzil


Aitken, W. T.
Cordle, John
Gammans, Lady


Allason, James
Corfield, F. V.
Gardner, Edward


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Coulson, J. M.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David


Balniel, Lord
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Glover, Sir Douglas


Barber, Anthony
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Barter, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Godber, J. B.


Batsford, Brian
Curran, Charles
Gower, Raymond


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Currie, G. B. H.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)


Bidgood, John C.
Dance, James
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Green, Alan


Bingham, R. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bishop, F. P.
de Ferranti, Basil
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bossom, Clive
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Box, Donald
Doughty, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brewis, John
du Cann, Edward
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Duncan, Sir James
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Brooman-White, R.
Elliott, R. W.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Emery, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bullard, Denys
Errington, Sir Eric
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Farey-Jones. F. W.
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Farr, John
Hendry, Forbes


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Fell, Anthony
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Finlay, Graeme
Hiley, Joseph


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Fisher, Nigel
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Collard, Richard
Forrest, George
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Cooke, Robert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hirst, Geoffrey




Hocking, Philip N.
Nabarro, Gerald
Speir, Rupert


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hollingworth, John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hornby, R P.
Noble, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Talbot, John E.


Jackson, John
Partridge, E.
Temple, John M.


James, David
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peel, John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Percival, Ian
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Peyton, John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turner, Colin


Kimball, Marcus
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kirk, Peter
Pitman, I. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Leavey, J. A.
Pott, Percivall
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. Sir Harry
Powell, J. Enoch
Vane, W. M. F.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, J. M. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Lilley, F. J. P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vickers, Miss Joan


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rawlinson, Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wall, Patrick


Loveys, Walter H.
Rees, Hugh
Watts, James


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Webster, David


Mac Arthur, Ian
Renton, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McLaren, Martin
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Whitelaw, William


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Ridsdale, Julian
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Robinson, sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Roots, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wise, A. R.


Maddan, Martin
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maginnis, John E.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodhouse, C. M.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sharples, Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Shaw, M.
Woollam, John


Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)



Morgan, William
Spearman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bryan and Mr. Chichester-Clark.

New Clause.—(RELIEF FOR DISABLED PERSONS.)

Section two hundred and eleven of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (Earned income and old-age reliefs), shall apply to a claimant under the age of sixty-five years who proves that for the whole year of assessment he was incapacitated by ill health or mental or bodily infirmity from exercising his normal trade, profession, employment, or vocation as it applies

to a claimant who proves that at any time within the year of assessment he was of the age of sixty-five years or upwards.—[Mr. Houghton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 143, Noes 202.

Division No. 112.]
AYES
[11.1 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Ainsley, William
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, A. E.


Awbery, Stan
Evans, Albert
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Fletcher, Eric
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Beaney, Alan
Foot, Dingle
Jeger, George


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Benson, Sir George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Blackburn, F.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Blyton, William
Ginsburg, David
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
King, Dr. Horace


Boyden, James
Gourlay, Harry
Lawson, George


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Greenwood, Anthony
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, Charles
Logan, David


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Loughlin, Charles


Cliffe, Michael
Grimond, J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gunter, Ray
McCann, John


Cronin, John
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacColl, James


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McInnes, James


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hannan, William
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mackie, John


Deer, George
Hayman, F. H.
Mahon, Simon


Delargy, Hugh
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Dempsey, James
Holman, Percy
Manuel, A. C.


Diamond, John
Holt, Arthur
Mapp, Charles


Dodds, Norman
Houghton, Douglas
Marsh, Richard


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hoy, James H.
Mendelson, J. J.




Millan, Bruce
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Thornton, Ernest


Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William
Thorpe, Jeremy


Monslow, Walter
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Timmons, John


Morris, John
Skeffington, Arthur
Wade, Donald


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Oram, A, E.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Watkins, Tudor


Paget, R. T.
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pargiter, G. A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Pavitt, Laurence
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Whitlock, William


Pentland, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Popplewell, Ernest
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


prentice, R. E.
Stonehouse, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stones, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Probert, Arthur
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Randall, Harry
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Woof, Robert


Rankin, John
Swain, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Redhead, E. C.
Swingler, Stephen



Reid, William
Symonds, J. B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Mr. Charles Howell and


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Mr Sydney Irving.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maddan, Martin


Aitken, W. T.
Freeth, Denzil
Maginnis, John E.


Allason, James
Gammans, Lady
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Gardner, Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mawby, Ray


Balniel, Lord
Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus


Barber, Anthony
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Morgan, William


Barter, John
Godber, J. B.
Nabarro, Gerald


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bidgood, John C.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Bingham, R. M.
Gresham Cooke, R,
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)


Bishop, F. P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Page, Graham


Bossom, Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Box, Donald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Partridge, E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Brewis, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Peel, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macolesf'd)
Percival, Ian


Brooman-White, R.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peyton, John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bryan, Paul
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bullard, Denys
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hendry, Forbes
Pitman, I. J.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pott, Percivall


Campbell, sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hiley, Joseph
Powell J. Enoch


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hinohingbrooke, Viscount
Rawlimon, Peter


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Collard, Richard
Hocking, Philip N.
Rees, Hugh


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hollingworth, John
Renton, David


Cordle, John
Hornby, R. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Ridsdale, Julian


Coulson, J. M.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jackson, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Curran, Charles
James, David
Sharples, Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shaw, M.


Dance, James
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Skeet, T. H. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf rd &amp; Chiswick)


Deedes, W. F.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Spearman, Sir Alexander


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Speir, Rupert


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kimball, Marcus
Stevens, Geoffrey


Doughty, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Leavey, J. A.
Stoddard-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


du Cann, Edward
Legge-Bourke, Maj. Sir Harry
Storey, Sir Samuel


Duncan, Sir James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Elliott, R. W.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Emery, Peter
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Talbot, John E.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Loveys, Walter H.
Temple, John M.


Fair, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fisher, Nigel
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turner, Colin


Forrest, George
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.




Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodnutt, Mark


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitelaw, William
Woollam, John


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Worsley, Marcus


Victors, Miss Joan
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wall, Patrick
Wise, A. R.
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Watts, James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Michael Noble.


Webster, David
Woodhouse, C. M.

Mr. Amory: The hour is getting late and we have put in a good many hours of honest toil. We have not got quite as far as I had hoped, but on the other hand we have made reasonable progress. There is a general understanding throughout the Committee that we ought to complete the Committee stage tomorrow evening. If that is so, we can reasonably postpone further consideration until tomorrow.
Therefore, I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, LEYTON (RENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.10 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Though it is fairly late at night, I feel that this topic, on which I desire to raise a few points, is sufficiently urgent to justify me claiming the time of the Minister for the next quarter of an hour. I intend to raise a matter of importance, not only to my constituents, but also to any other tenant householders throughout the country.
It concerns, in particular, the purchase of an estate of working-class dwellings by a property investment company and subsequently, initially at least, the demand for substantial increases in the rents for all decontrolled tenants. I have sent information to the Minister. I have presented a petition to the House and sent to the Minister another petition with 3,500 signatories. I have also put Questions to him, so he is now fairly familiar with the problem.
The facts are these. In my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) and Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) there is a large estate, which has been run by Warner

Estates, Limited. That company has been a very good landlord, and still is. I make no complaint about it. For some reason or other it saw fit a short time ago to sell 750 houses of its total estate in the two areas.

Forthwith the company to which it sold the block of 750 working-class dwellings proceeded to raise the rents—in the case of controlled tenants to the utmost permissible under the Rent Act, and in the case of decontrolled tenants, amounting to about 100, it proceeded initially to demand as much as twice, or even three times, the rent that had prevailed until then. Intimation of this increase was sent to all tenants, and inevitably they became very alarmed.

There were many other proposals in the original intimation by the new company, Peachey Properties Corporation. For instance, there was an offer of £200, or even more, to tenants if they would leave their property and go elsewhere. This was an inducement to them to clear out. In the case of decontrolled tenants, there was an offer of £25 if within three months they were prepared to go elsewhere for accommodation.

Apart from that, anyone looking at the demands made by the new investment company must have been alarmed at the amount it was demanding. I will anticipate later remarks by saying that it was induced ultimately to modify those demands very considerably through the efforts of a tenants' association formed in my locality.

I will give four typical instances of what was demanded originally. In the case of a small unmodernised flat the old rent was £1 0s. 6d. The new rent demanded, plus rates, is £3 15s., a difference of £2 14s. 6d. I will give another example of a small modernised flat. Incidentally, most of these flats are in buildings, with one flat up and one flat down, and consist of three or four rooms, plus a scullery or kitchen. In the case of this small modernised flat the old rent was £1 7s. 6d. The new rent is £3 12s. 6d., a difference of £2 5s. In the case of a large unmodernised flat the


old rent was £1 4s. 6d., which was raised to £3 19s. 2d., representing a difference of £2 15s. 6d. Another instance is of a large modernised flat, the original rent of which was £1 8s. 6d., and the new rent demanded is £3 10s. 10d., a difference of £2 2s. 10d.

I give these illustrations in order that we should be familiar with what this meant to the tenants. It meant in many cases great alarm, and indeed a meeting was hurriedly called. Some 1,000 tenants and their wives filled to overflowing the school hall where the meeting was held. Later on another hall was hired and 700 to 800 people crowded into that hall, all standing, to listen to the recital of facts and possible remedies.

I am glad in this instance that the tenants formed an association. I am glad, in particular, that one of my young friends in the district, Councillor Robinson, is a tenant on this estate. He has been able to give the other tenants very considerable guidance. I am glad also that as a result of the organisation of the tenants, their firm yet courteous demands, and their explanation of the grievous harm that had been done to many of them, substantial concessions were secured from the new company. I congratulate them on being wise, shrewd or expedient, as the case may be, and certainly the tenants appreciate the fact that the original threat is not so menacing as it was.

However, that does not alter the fact that what has taken place in my own constituency, although now modified, is taking place in other parts of the country, and, indeed, in certain cases even in my own constituency. I am sure that many hon. Members have had letters bitterly complaining that they are now having a demand for £3 or £4 a week for a two-roomed flat, and that is by no means exceptional. Some of my colleagues tell me of the tragedy that occurs in their own area where, because of decontrol, there is a sudden demand made by some new company that has purchased a property, with the result that the tenant does not know which way to turn and in the end decides to remain in the accommodation, although doing so, perhaps, at the cost of his own nourishment.

That is why I was rather surprised at what I can only call the cynical observation of the Minister of Housing and Local Government when I asked him a Question a short time ago. He said that What matters is not the percentage increase in rent and that if the owners were to ask for an excessive rent they would not get tenants. Either the right hon. Gentleman is appallingly ignorant of circumstances such as prevail in my constituency or other constituencies, or else he has reached a depth of cynicism which I do not think is really characteristic of him.

We know that tenants have nowhere else to go but to live in the places where they have lived for some years, or where they have been able to enter in the last three or four years through some good fortune. Where can they turn? There are no places to let in my constituency or for miles around. Therefore, they are compelled under duress to pay these excessive rents—excessive in comparison with their incomes. Even though wages in many respects are better than they were, there are a large number drawing meagre wages, and even in the case where the wages are not so meagre, the fact remains that they have ordered their budgets for the coming year, and to find enough money to meet these substantial increases is appalling to them. I hope the Minister will appreciate that the tenants I have particularly in mind, and similar tenants in other parts of the country, are paying excessive rents. They are paying them because, of course, the demand for accommodation at present is still far beyond the supply.

I recognise that it is contended that if there is to be an economic rent £4 or £5 a week would not be excessive from that standpoint in order to secure at least a 4 per cent. return. I understand, also, why it is that the shares of property companies appear to be booming today. For instance, in the Evening News of 25th May this year, it was stated that the Peachey Property Corporation, Ltd. reported a surplus of £4,166,000 which had been placed to capital reserve, the group net profit for the eighteen months ending June 24th, 1959, being £114,827 after deduction of tax at £113,303. One can understand why some of these companies are making these substantial profits. They are able to do so by


taking advantage of the relative scarcity of dwellings today.

In the circumstances, the Minister should appreciate that his Rent Act has failed to secure justice and equity for thousands of tenant householders. I submit to him that, if he did not expect that the-e would be these substantial rises of 150 per cent., 200 per cent. or even 300 per cent. in the rents previously paid, then he should frankly recognise what has happened and bring in some kind of amending legislation. Further, I suggest that, in order to ascertain or declare what is a fair rent, it might be possible for his own Ministry either to appoint several officers who themselves could arbitrate and then announce the criteria for a fair rent in particular instances or, at least, to give power to the local authorities so to do not only in regard to their own property but in regard to private property as well.

There is no need for this to be coercive. It may be highly desirable, a fair rent once having been determined, that it should then be imposed; but what I suggest can exist without that imposition. Certainly, it would help considerably if both landlords and tenants could have before them an objective, impartial and impersonal judgment of what a fair rent was in regard to certain properties. I ask again that the Minister should think over that suggestion. I do not understand why he should reject it. The reasons or excuses he gave previously seemed to me to be quite insubstantial. Even though it might be better if the power of imposition were to accompany the assessment of a fair rent, I should be prepared for that qualification not to exist provided there was some means by which the public generally might know, and landlords and tenants might know, what a fair rent was in the estimation of an impartial assessor.

Although this matter has to be ventilated by me tonight in no more than ten minutes or so, its importance is far greater than the limited time available would indicate and far greater than the concern of my constituents only. My constituents, through their agitation and organisation, have been able to secure certain substantial concessions. If they had not had someone to lead and help them to agitate and organise, they would have been facing very hard times now.

Although my constituents may have been fortunate, I am thinking of tens of thousands of tenants elsewhere. In order to be sure of introducing the principles of equity and justice among those who are today becoming alarmed and even desperate, I ask the Minister to think seriously again about my suggestion and about the possibility of bringing in amending legislation.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) has mentioned one striking instance of a problem which is cropping up all over the country. I quote another instance, that of the tenants of Kew Bridge Court, which recently has been brought to my notice. Situated in Chiswick, it is the property of London Property Services. The tenants there had their rents doubled in 1957. With the expiry of a three-year agreement, they face having them doubled again. The landlords have shown already that they are quite prepared to let flats stand empty, often for long periods, rather than moderate their demands, judging that in the long run that will pay them best, no matter how much hardship and insecurity it creates.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, to beseech his right hon. Friend to take the course of action which my hon. Friend has urged and, possibly, to do two other things. The first of these is to issue some kind of circular, directive or public statement making it clear to landlords that they are supposed to negotiate rents, not simply to stand pat and demand the last penny they can get. It ought to be made clear to them that that was supposed to be the intention of the Act.
Secondly, will the Minister circularise local authorities pointing out some of the ways in which they can help people who may be rendered homeless by the Rent Act? In Acton, I believe, the local authority has rendered considerable help to tenants, with the approval of the Ministry. A general directive to local authorities suggesting useful action that they might take would help to mitigate this evil.

11.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): First, I should


like to say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) for his courtesy in sending me details in advance of the main outline of his case. Secondly, what is said tonight, on both sides of the House, will be of wider interest than merely to the hon. Member's constituents. I notice that not only the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who has just spoken, but my hon Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) is also here as one many of whose constituents are at least neighbours of what is going on in Leyton.

Mr. Sorensen: And my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead).

Sir K. Joseph: Yes.
I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton will permit me to state without dispute at this stage one of the main purposes for which the Rent Act was brought in. It was to bring back private enterprise into the field of housing to let, or, at least, to create the essential conditions in which we might hope that private enterprise might return to urban housing to let. Any such hope is in no way to discredit or decry What the local authorities are doing. They are the principal agent for housing to let. We all recognise that in nearly every part of the country local authorities are going just about as hard as they can in building. They have all sorts of restrictions in the way of land. Their officers are fully extended in tackling the task, and they would be the first to say that if private enterprise can be brought back into this field, using sites which, perhaps, are smaller than those that local authorities can effectively use, it can only be to the benefit of all.
The fact is that long years of controlled rents plus, during the last few years, a boom in building for sale has driven private enterprise builders, that potentially great source of capital and enterprise, out of the cities on to the green fields. We hope that decontrol, coupled with the general rise in prosperity and standards, will bring them back into the cities to help the local authorities in the task of providing wage earners with dwellings to rent. I must, however, stress that this will take place only if the profit incentive is allowed to operate.
With great sincerity, the hon. Member for Leyton has put forward a plea for some sort of tribunal. He says that there is no need for it to have coercive powers and that it could use moral influence. I ask him to recognise, however, that the idea of a fair rent is just about as helpful as what is a fair wage or fair income, for these are matters of opinion. They introduce into this matter uncertainty and obscurity, which is the sort of atmosphere which must kill the incentive to private enterprise, which we so much want to encourage to return to this sort of market. The sad fact is that the long-term interests of all require that business should find the redevelopment of dwellings to let in the cities a profitable enterprise, else it will not return, and if we want the work of the local authorities supplemented in this way we must let the market work.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton for permitting that general statement of case to begin with. I shall keep away from the particular for only one more passage, and that is to emphasise that since rents were decontrolled various other things have happened as well. After all, control of rents permitted that the 1939 average rent could be donbled, and when rent decontrol occurred, in most cases there had been increases of rents by about 100 per cent., even in the controlled sector of rented dwellings. It is from that basis, namely, double the 1939 rents, that the rent increases which the hon. Member has been describing have to be judged.
But, since 1939, price levels in general have increased three times and earnings levels have increased about four times. Compared with 1939, when there was quite a lot of unemployment, there is now the fullest of full employment on the whole and most households now have not only one, but one and a fraction wage earners, so that the income position of tenants cannot be judged by looking at the rent alone.
Of course, I do not deny for a moment that when decontrol occurs and rent is jerked up in one instant from below market level right up to market level, it can be a desperate and frightening shock to the people concerned. I am not minimising that for a moment, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the adjustment which is taking place suddenly


would not have been intolerable if it had taken place steadily over the years because of the rise in income levels and because of the increased number of wage earners in most households.
If I were in the hon. Gentleman's place, I would want to know from me, as it were, about the people who are not earning, and here I say that if there are people who are not earning or who are earning extremely little, or who have large families, the National Assistance Board stands ready to supplement rent. If the hon. Gentleman then attacks me and says that the National Assistance Board is limited and quite rightly limited in the rent it can pay, I remind him that in a debate on 3rd December, 1959, the position of the National Assistance Board was set out by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It was explained that National Assistance at least avoids the shock of a sudden increase on anybody who is faced with a rent demand which he cannot meet and does not think it proper to meet, and that at least it gives him time to find a place of his own.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that except for low wage earners the Board cannot help?

Sir K. Joseph: I was trying to fill in the gap for old-age pensioners. Time is running short and I must make speed.
I distinguish between controlled and uncontrolled tenancies, and first I will deal with controlled tenancies. The vast bulk of those tenancies have been preserved and are still controlled. The hon. Gentleman said that landlords have offered £250 to individual tenants to give up their controlled tenancies. There is no law which prevents a landlord from doing that, but equally there is no law which forces the tenant to accept. If the tenant refuses, he can suffer no possible pressure, and I have seen from the documents that the landlords fully accept the right of tenants of controlled tenancies to refuse the offer.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if the tenant accepts the place becomes decontrolled?

Sir K. Joseph: I am simply saying that he has no obligation to accept it. He has only himself to blame if he does.
It appears that the landlords of these controlled tenancies have offered long leases at fixed rents with an option to break at five-year intervals held by the tenant only, with the rent fixed somewhere between the present rent and the market rent. No doubt, tenants will consider the offer. A fixed rent security without a long-term obligation may have attractions if the property is structurally sound and proper advice is taken about the property and repairing and tax obligations. That is not for me to advise. I point out that real incomes will almost certainly rise. The Government Actuary has been instructed to assume a rise in real incomes of 2 per cent. per annum. Therefore, a fixed rent would in all probability bear a lower proportion to income. But that is for the tenants to decide.
Now I move to the issue of uncontrolled tenancies. The hon. Gentleman (lid not mention what is the most unfortunate factor in this situation, namely, those people who gave up their controlled tenancy in order to help the previous landlord to carry out a modernisation programme. It is very sad indeed that because of this these tenants should have lost their controlled status. Also, it was completely unnecessary because had they been well advised at the time they would, before they moved out, have invoked Section 17 of the Rent Act, 1957, which provides that where people move to suit their landlord and with his approval into other tenancies of the landlord the controlled status can move with them. I hope that one value of this debate will be to bring out that important fact.
As it is, they are faced with substantially higher rents. I must agree that the contingency of higher rents was foreseen when the Rent Act was passed. We still believe that it is absolutely right to try in this way to bring back private enterprise to help authorities to provide dwellings for urban wage-earners.
My right hon. Friend has always stressed that tenants in this situation should organise themselves into an association and negotiate with the landlords. He has always stressed that the landlords should take up a negotiating posture, too, and that the two sides should meet to negotiate.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should be the first to say that in the


event of these negotiations the extreme rent demands which the tenants faced at first have been moderated. There are one or two surprising features in the landlords' proposals in this case if the figures given by the hon. Gentleman can be taken as typical. It appears that the landlords are asking the same rent for large or small flats, modernised or unmodernised. One would have thought that they would charge less for the smaller and for the unmodernised, and would offer transfers so as to enable tenants to suit their purse.
Secondly, one is surprised that landlords who are so experienced as these should not be willing to consider raising the rents to market level over a rather longer period than three months. I recognise that they are voluntarily extending the four weeks provided by the Act, but might they not, perhaps, consider spreading the increases over a slightly longer period, benefiting themselves by getting some increase earlier than they now propose, but benefiting the tenant by deferring the last part of the increase to reach market level for a year or so?
I must finish by saying that there are several encouraging features in this case. I do not deny the shock that it must have been to the tenants. Firstly, the newly-born tenants' association has procured some concessions. Secondly, the landlords say that they are perfectly willing to consider individual cases of hardship. Thirdly, the landlords say that they are ready to meet the association to discuss further. Fourthly—and this is perhaps the most important fact of all—these dwellings are still being offered to rent.
But for decontrol, I think it is absolutely certain that the new landlord would have been selling these dwellings if he possibly could; and if he had got vacant possession of any of them, as he has the legal right to have vacant possession in decontrolled cases, he would have been able to sell them. The Rent Act has retained these dwellings in the market to rent, and that is some comfort.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Twelve o'clock.